SAVE STATES VS SAVE FILES

Consider where the term "saved states" come from. It comes from emulators, and their ability to save the game-state where it normally isn't allowed. Such as in the middle of a battle (Darigaaz, I hacked mid-battle state-saves in BOF2 for the express purpose of recharging Ryu's AP and abusing his dragon forms, it's not even funny), or just before making a choice. There may be other scenarios where a saved states are appropriate, but the general sense is that saved states are "instant speed saves". They are the here and now of yesterday, whereas saved games are generally "slower", or have a more solidified place in-game.

Maybe that's just me, though.

I think the term you're looking for is "quicksave," for the type of save files that make you exit the game when you save them, and then get automatically deleted when you load them. They obviously can't be the game's only form of saving unless it's a permadeath game, because you can't reload from them after dying! Also if you run out of laptop battery or something while playing you will have to start the game over! So you still need a way to create a permanent save file, whether that's done automatically or manually by the player.

If you're limiting the places where the player can make permanent save files, there's basically no reason at all not to have quicksaves and they make your game vastly more accessible, so please use them. If you allow save-anywhere they are far less important.

If this isn't what you're talking about, I don't know what you mean by "save state".

No, I'm pretty sure he's just misusing the term that usually refers to that, since he's taking about adding features to RPG Maker games, and there's no actual difference between that and save-anywhere except the ability to save mid-battle.

Are we talking about adding the ability to save mid-battle? Because that is dumb. Don't do that.

I never used the normal saves in Romancing SaGa. I honestly don't understand why they exist.

author=Locke
No, I'm pretty sure he's just misusing the term that usually refers to that, since he's taking about adding features to RPG Maker games, and there's no actual difference between that and save-anywhere except the ability to save mid-battle

No dude. He's talking about the ability unique to save states, in that you can save literally anywhere/anytime.

author=Locke
I never used the normal saves in Romancing SaGa. I honestly don't understand why they exist.

What Rya said. I hope you were competent enough at the game to never have to worry about saving yourself into oblivion.

Save states are a type of save file though. In fact they're identical to save files in every way except that the term "save state" implies that you're using an external tool to make a save file in a place where the game doesn't really allow you to save. Obviously by definition this means it's not something you can consider adding to your own game.

so I'm still not sure where the "vs" in the topic comes from or what two ideas you're actually comparing

I just assumed you were using the term wrong because otherwise the topic makes no sense.

Ow, my semantics.

The methods by which you allow saving depend entirely on the kind of game you're making. How much freedom you can afford to give the player with saving depends on a lot of factors, the most important of which being the consequences of a game over, power out, F4, or whatever session-terminating circumstances arise.

As others mentioned, you mustn't allow the player to save in a no-win situation, but that doesn't mean it can't ever work. Take, for example, the Elite 4 in Pokémon games. Those games let you save anywhere, including before Elite 4 battles, but the player can't retreat if they can't win. It may be an unwinnable situation, but the consequences for losing aren't Game Over. The player is instead warped back to the Pokémon Center where they can rethink their strategy (and mourn all the money they lost).

So, depending on the nature of the consequences, allowing the player to save anywhere is doable. However, you also run the risk of those saves being exploited. Once again, an example from Pokémon: the Game Corner. Game tokens were expensive as f@#$, and hoping for the RNG to fall in your favor on the slots was the dumbest way to accrue them. Every time I needed tokens, I'd save before using the slots, play until I either won big or lost too much, then save or restart respectively.

For a more typical RPG example, suppose you had a chest with randomized contents. If the player can save anywhere, they can save in front of the chest and keep opening it until they get the result they want.

How and when you allow the player to save can make or break a game. Context is everything.

I'm a bit torn on that perspective. I can see what you mean, but I don't entirely agree. It's one thing for a game to be convenient to play; that's something all games should strive for. It's another for the game to lay down and die when the player feels like pressing 'A' to win. It depends on the type of game, of course, but for something that's meant to be challenging, giving the player total control of their saving doesn't necessarily work.

With my RPG example of the randomized chest, it's a matter of convenience. If the player saved right in front of the chest and reloading took only 3 seconds, it only makes sense they'd spam it for the best result. If the game had save points and half the dungeon stood between the player and the chest, they wouldn't even think to try it twice unless they were absolutely determined. Grinding is like that, in a sense; tedious work the player puts in to make the game easier for themselves. The gain in stats is their reward for the monotony.

Going back to my Pokémon examples, I've never felt bad about cheesing the Game Corner or saving before a fight and resetting when I lost it. It's less of a problem in later games where in-game money isn't limited, but those things don't make the game any easier. It's bypassing a bogus minigame or preventing a costly failure. For the latter case, the challenge still remains.

Again, it really depends on the type of game you're making. I remember that some of the old PC Tomb Raider games let you save wherever you wanted. However, if you saved in a dangerous situation, you could get flattened by a rock or be falling off a cliff with no hope for redemption. If that was your only save, congrats! You get to start the whole game over (idiot). Now, suppose if the only requirement for saving was that the player was standing still. They'd be unlikely to save in a tight spot, and therefore be less able to screw themselves over.

How much freedom you allow the player in saving depends on way too much to be so cut and dry. The kind of saving freedom you get with rom hacks is rarely ideal, but even slight restrictions on saving can make the difference.

EDIT: Just remembered why the old Tomb Raiders were such a problem. Save and Load were similar functions for it, so if you screwed up a jump or something, you might accidentally save instead of loading, thus dooming yourself unwittingly. Standstill would've solved it regardless. >_<

I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree with it. I'd only add that, while grinding is tedious work, it's also the player's choice. As long as it's not required, it's up to their play style whether they do so or not. If they're too dumb to see alternate solutions to grinding, well, that's on them, too. ;P