Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SAVING AND SAVE STATES
Posts
Pages:
1
McBick
1339
McBick
View playlists
CloseI would like to know is allowing the player to save at any point in time in the game the same thing as using save states and if so does that break the game? If it does break the game then how often should a player be allowed to save while playing a game?
Mr_Detective
60
I would like to know is allowing the player to save at any point in time in the game the same thing as using save states
Kinda, except that save states allow you to save anywhere, anytime (like during battle, cutscene, ect.) you want. Saving at any point, like you said, is only possible by opening the menu.
It all depends on your decision and what kind of game you are making. But I don't think it would break the game, by any means. If you 're going to restrict saving, let the players save before and after an important event.
McBick
1339
I guess I should also clarify that I am talking about all types of games and not just rpgs.
Mr_Detective
60
I 've never played a shooting game that allows you to save anywhere, except for Half Life... Not even in fighting games or action games, so I don't really know for sure...
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Letting you save literally anywhere will absolutely break most games, yeah. Letting you save any time that you're not in combat (or not in the middle of a challenge, in a non-combat game) will only break some games, depending on how much of the player's limited resources, health, and stress carry over from one battle (or challenge) to the next. Generally speaking, starting over from the middle of a challenge feels cheap, ruins a lot of types of challenges, and disrupts the pacing of the game, making it less fun. It can also create unwinnable scenarios if the player picks a dumb time to save. This topic on save scumming is relevant, and you should read it, but it's over a year old so you probably shouldn't actually post in it. Just continue to post in this new topic you made.
You might also want to read this topic on death penalties if the reason you're interested in save states is because you don't like how game overs work in typical games. (And just, uh, kind of ignore everything after page 2, because that was when some guy on heavy drugs showed up and gave everyone aneurisms.)
You might also want to read this topic on death penalties if the reason you're interested in save states is because you don't like how game overs work in typical games. (And just, uh, kind of ignore everything after page 2, because that was when some guy on heavy drugs showed up and gave everyone aneurisms.)
TheNecromancer
3160
I played a game where you lost some exp every time you saved outside of town. that was interesting.
haha Snodgrass!
haha Snodgrass!
I would like to know is allowing the player to save at any point in time in the game the same thing as using save states and if so does that break the game? If it does break the game then how often should a player be allowed to save while playing a game?
Not letting a player save everywhere is a pretty awful practice, yeah. Some people might say that it breaks the game to let the player save anywhere they want, but that's only if you designed your game poorly. It is difficult to consider all the ramifications of this, though. If your player is ever forced to complete a task that they've already completed, then you're showing flagrant disrespect for your player's time. Being forced to backtrack and rebeat battles you've already conquered is never a good thing.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Sailerius
Some people might say that it breaks the game to let the player save anywhere they want, but that's only if you designed your game poorly.
Some people might say that it breaks the game to only allow saving at specific points, but that's only if you designed your game poorly.
author=SaileriusI would like to know is allowing the player to save at any point in time in the game the same thing as using save states and if so does that break the game? If it does break the game then how often should a player be allowed to save while playing a game?Being forced to backtrack and rebeat battles you've already conquered is never a good thing.
I already talked about this earlier this year at RM Web. A pure "save anywhere" game will probably be more punishing in this regard than one with well-paced save points, because a player who sits down to play an RM game for a long time, is having fun and is doing well, may forget about saving for 1-2 hours, and if they suddenly get into a risky situation and die because of their own fault, they will lose all that progress and most probably leave the game in frustration and never come back (I know it because I'm guilty for it - it has happened to me with many RM games and I'm sure you might have had some related experiences).
To prevent these cases from showing up, I would recommend implementing an Autosave feature or mixing up save anywhere and save points, even if it ends up a tad redundant.
For the type of projects I work on, I tend to favor limited saving. But there are valid concerns in favor of saving anywhere - for example, the player may suddenly want to stop playing and doesn't want to backtrack / continue 'till the next save point or really has to exit the game. Then I would maybe implement a Quicksave feature.
Robotrek on Super NES lets you save basically anywhere since the first item you get in the game is a walkie-talkie that lets you save your game. There's only a handful of rooms in the entire game that you can't save at. They still let you know when there's going to be a boss battle by putting a skull above the doorway, as if to say "use your radio right now."
Outside of that and Pokemon, I'm drawing a blank and I've played a good amount of games. As long as you have save points in dungeons (beginning and right before the boss, or possibly another in the middle if it's a long one) and NOT be jerks about it like in the Dragon Quest series where you only save at kings and (depending on the game) churches, save points should be fine. If the player is familiar with the genre, they should be okay with it.
Outside of that and Pokemon, I'm drawing a blank and I've played a good amount of games. As long as you have save points in dungeons (beginning and right before the boss, or possibly another in the middle if it's a long one) and NOT be jerks about it like in the Dragon Quest series where you only save at kings and (depending on the game) churches, save points should be fine. If the player is familiar with the genre, they should be okay with it.
TheGowans
30
I prefer not to let players save anywhere because I've always had to rage quit loads of games because I saved in a stupid place.
That said with a 'save point' kind of system you can tell the player that something big is coming up, or simply say 'you finished that hard ass boss/puzzle, have a save so you don't do it again.
With save anywhere such as in pokemon they have a lot of things in place to stop you saving in inescapable places such as dig, fly and escape ropes, as well as 'death' not returning you to the last save, but just continuing the flow of the game, always useful when I was a kid and had to save on the fly cos my parents where raging at me for playing too much xD
That said with a 'save point' kind of system you can tell the player that something big is coming up, or simply say 'you finished that hard ass boss/puzzle, have a save so you don't do it again.
With save anywhere such as in pokemon they have a lot of things in place to stop you saving in inescapable places such as dig, fly and escape ropes, as well as 'death' not returning you to the last save, but just continuing the flow of the game, always useful when I was a kid and had to save on the fly cos my parents where raging at me for playing too much xD
Crystalgate
694
author=TheGowans
I prefer not to let players save anywhere because I've always had to rage quit loads of games because I saved in a stupid place.
When I find out I saved in a bad spot, I load the other save, the one I made in a safe spot like a town with an inn or a healing crystal/circle/spring.
That said, it doesn't hurt to pay attention to the possibility that the players can save in an unsalvageable situation and see if you can minimize (or reduce to zero) that risk.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Only game I've ever played that let me save in an unsalvagable situation was FFT. Since you're making the game yourself, it's an easy problem to solve. Just because you don't want save-anywhere doesn't mean you can't have save-anywhere-except-riovanes-castle. I mean, we're talking about making your own save system, right?
I do think there are legit reasons to only have save points, but I don't think that's one of them.
Of course emulators and cheat codes and test play mode might allow savestates in horrible places, but if the player hacks your game and it causes him to not be able to play your game, no sympathy, yo.
I do think there are legit reasons to only have save points, but I don't think that's one of them.
Of course emulators and cheat codes and test play mode might allow savestates in horrible places, but if the player hacks your game and it causes him to not be able to play your game, no sympathy, yo.
Killer Wolf
1235
I prefer the ability to save anywhere and everywhere. Deus Ex allowed it. The Elder Scrolls games allow it. Both old and new Fallouts allow it. (outside of dialog)
There is the school of thought that suggests save scumming makes an adventure look like a series of lucky guesses. I'm actually okay with that. Maybe the player is role-playing a clairvoyant in their meta-game.
Not being able to save annoys me. I don't want to have to sit through a cutscene before every attempt at a boss who can one-hit me if I'm not using the ultra-secret party composition of victory.
There is the school of thought that suggests save scumming makes an adventure look like a series of lucky guesses. I'm actually okay with that. Maybe the player is role-playing a clairvoyant in their meta-game.
Not being able to save annoys me. I don't want to have to sit through a cutscene before every attempt at a boss who can one-hit me if I'm not using the ultra-secret party composition of victory.
Orias_Obderhode
1387
I think it's not always an issue of when you allow a person to save. Sometimes, the punishment for death in a game is just too much. When you get a "GAME OVER" screen and lose everything you've done since the last save - then yeah, it's annoying.
Looking at the Dragon Quest series as inspiration here, I think it is better when a death doesn't mean you lose all progress. Instead, death sends you back to the last "safe place" with half your gold. So yeah, you lose something by dying, but no, you didn't lose hours and hours of hard work / all progress you made.
Even with this system, I don't allow you to save anywhere. I only allow saving in "safe places" - which sure, they are plentiful and never that far away, but I guess there could be a time where someone randomly has to go and it might be an inconvenience.
Looking at the Dragon Quest series as inspiration here, I think it is better when a death doesn't mean you lose all progress. Instead, death sends you back to the last "safe place" with half your gold. So yeah, you lose something by dying, but no, you didn't lose hours and hours of hard work / all progress you made.
Even with this system, I don't allow you to save anywhere. I only allow saving in "safe places" - which sure, they are plentiful and never that far away, but I guess there could be a time where someone randomly has to go and it might be an inconvenience.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Killer WolfThis implies a way bigger problem than lack of save-anywhere. What you think you want is save-anywhere, but what you really want is battles that don't require clairvoyance or game overs to figure out.
Not being able to save annoys me. I don't want to have to sit through a cutscene before every attempt at a boss who can one-hit me if I'm not using the ultra-secret party composition of victory.
Though, I guess you could also say it's a combination of those two factors that causes the problem. You have the need to save scum, but you don't have the ability to save scum; that combination is the problem. Fixing either one would resolve it. But battles that require clairvoyance or game overs to figure out cause so many other problems unrelated to this issue. So that's what I prefer to remove: the need to save scum. But just adding save-anywhere is certainly by far the simpler solution, and you can probably address the other problems a different way. There are multiple paths to success.
FF13 doesn't have save-anywhere, but it feels like it does, due to the retry system and mostly-non-respawning enemies; it's designed to keep you from ever having to redo anything you've finished. Legend of Zelda has save-anywhere, but when you load a saved game you get warped back to the dungeon entrance or to your house, so it feels like it doesn't; it's designed to make you explore and familiarize yourself with the dungeon and the world more than you would otherwise, making exploration a bigger part of the game. You can make your own system, that combines aspects of different save systems in some other novel way, but make sure you know why you're making it, and make sure that reason fits in with your game's overall goals.
Speaking as a player and not as a designer here. I've played games where you can save anywhere and at any time, alongside games that allowed you to only save in "safe zones" like towns, and games that let you save at save points sprinkled throughout the game. These to me are the most common methods of saving in RPGs.
I prefer the Dragon Quest style the best because it makes the most sense. I hate it when games coddle me* and one way of doing that is by punishing death (Death = Failure btw) with a slap on the wrist and put back at your previous save. Handling death and saving in RPGs is really tricky, and I think that Dragon Quest handled it best. Losing half your gold and being sent back to the place you last saved without losing the progress you made.
1) It makes sense to lose half your gold because you died. So someone's gotta revive you.
2) If that doesn't float your boat. You can just say that losing half your wealth is good incentive to not die. Dying sucks anyway.
3) It presents the player with an ultimatum. If you don't want to lose half your gold or needed it for something, you can always just reset your save and pretend the death never happened, or you just deal with it. Most people would probably go for the former option, but it's the choice that's important.
That's enough of a punishment. Because dying still isn't that big of a deal. It's not like you have limited continues or crap like that. But it's still enough of a repercussion that it makes going into dungeons a little more exciting and the threat of death is actually a tangible threat. Rather than a "meh whatever."
*That is, when it's painfully obvious the game's catering to the player.
I prefer the Dragon Quest style the best because it makes the most sense. I hate it when games coddle me* and one way of doing that is by punishing death (Death = Failure btw) with a slap on the wrist and put back at your previous save. Handling death and saving in RPGs is really tricky, and I think that Dragon Quest handled it best. Losing half your gold and being sent back to the place you last saved without losing the progress you made.
1) It makes sense to lose half your gold because you died. So someone's gotta revive you.
2) If that doesn't float your boat. You can just say that losing half your wealth is good incentive to not die. Dying sucks anyway.
3) It presents the player with an ultimatum. If you don't want to lose half your gold or needed it for something, you can always just reset your save and pretend the death never happened, or you just deal with it. Most people would probably go for the former option, but it's the choice that's important.
That's enough of a punishment. Because dying still isn't that big of a deal. It's not like you have limited continues or crap like that. But it's still enough of a repercussion that it makes going into dungeons a little more exciting and the threat of death is actually a tangible threat. Rather than a "meh whatever."
*That is, when it's painfully obvious the game's catering to the player.
Pages:
1
