When is it acceptable to save in FPS and RTS/TBS games when the game allows you to save anywhere? I feel like there must be some kind of balance between savescumming and iron man.
What games are acceptable to save more often? How would you save in the following: Thief, System Shock 2, Quake, Warcraft 3 and Master of Orion 2?
Why don't you go play those nice games first?
Who's to say I haven't user? Just interested in the consensus.
oh alright I misread "how WOULD you" line
Ok then back in the day, you're considered to be a cooler and more badass guy if you can long run without saving. And that saving type was simply ESC Save. But the less you use it, the more gamer you were.
This type of saving may look easy but it gives you extra caution, joy, reflexes and self esteem.
I don't do much saving in FPS unless I plan to do something potentially stupid just to see what happens. In strategy games I like to go back and see multiple outcomes of things, mainly when I don't give a fuck about winning so much as learning, even if I am winning I still like to go back and see how something could have turned the tables.
When making a game, the question shouldn't be "how much can the player save", the question should be "how can we design our game around this save system?".
You pick a method, then you design your game around it.
You're making a JRPG with save points?
Will those save points refill your HP and MP?
If yes, how do you balance encounters around that?
If no, how do you balance restoring items around that?
For exaple in souls games you have preiodic autosaves and just pressing start will save the game, but it won't work on bosses, you'll resume outside the boss room, and the entire level design revolves around bonfire checkpoints and so on.
Basically pick a system and build around that system, any system is viable if you correctly make your game around the system that you've chosen.
A good example between those two would probably be the Hitman games, which cut back how many saves you had based on difficulty. Makes it more of a strategic thing when it's an obviously limited resource and still gives you some room to fuck around and try different things without venturing into no fun autism land.
Whenever I don't feel like repeating what I just did.
This is a good solution but it mostly works on mission based games.
To experience how this system would work on a full game, play Dead Space 2 on Hard Core difficulty.
There's no checkpoints and you can only save three times the entire game.
I've completed it and it's fun and tense, especially as you approach the last save point you planned, but i wouldn't do it again, it was definitely an one time only thing for me.
What about something that is sort of a sacrifice system? Where you sacrifice an item/health/experience when you save? And make it hit harder and harder based on difficulty.
It depends on whether you want to invest in getting truly good at the game, or you just want to beat it as soon as possible.
Of all those, I'd say Thief is conclusively ruined by too much savescumming. It removes the "you are hiding in the dark and in danger" feeling.
It would need a reasonable lower cap, ala DeS.
DeS had World Tendency, wich would punish the player from dying in human form and would make each world harder and harder.
The more you sucked, the harder the game got, essentially.
It was an innovative idea, but largely despised by players, to the point that if you play DeS online right now, the server will gradually shift each world tendency towards white making the game easier because even From/Sony didn't think it was a very popular system.
I try and give myself checkpoints. Take Serious Sam's later levels. Doing them without saving would be a nice achievement, but failure could very well set me back an hour. No thanks. I'll savescum a couple times and I will not give a fuck.
But then with Doom, I never saved apart from the auto saves at the start of levels.
True. But having said that, especially in the first game, combat is a bit wonky and you can get fucked up too easily. Missions are like 40+ minutes long in some cases.
Maybe an auto save for each completed objective might have been a good idea.
Right, mainly meant different tiers of sacrifice required based on difficulty level chosen in most games. At a certain point it may get a bit meta but less scummy, I think.
Which one? SS1 and SS:SE had a pretty good checkpoint system.
god hand's progressive difficulty system is better.
depends on how much rng bullshit there is. for warcraft 3 about once every half hour is fine. for xcom? every fucking minute. ironman can eat shit and die.
for first-person shooters, whenever there is no checkpoint system available, I just save at the start of each level and restart the entire thing when I die
Although I do create another manual quicksave before sections like a mass ambush or first-person platforming which I usually consider bullshit
I don't remember any checkpoints in any of the Sam games apart from 2.
It really does depend on the game. If you give the player the ability to save anywhere at anytime, then you should build the game around it as if they were constantly doing it.
For something like Wizardry 6, you are capable of saving anywhere at anytime, but in return the encounter rate can get pretty high and later on they can also be tough. Especially when fighting several ninjas, each capable of instantly killing anybody. I should also note that there's no inn in this game, so there is no real place to stop and rest.
However in Wizardry: Tales of the Lost Labyrinth, you can only save while in town, even if encounters can get pretty tough and numerous at times. There are shortcuts to speed your way back to where you were as well as items that immediately take you back to town if shit goes wrong.
I save wherever the fuck I want. Before a boss, after a cutscene, whenever the fuck I feel it's best to save. I don't feel the need to be hindered to save "ONLY WHEN IT'S ACCEPTABLE." Because acceptable is a perspective and not objective thing. Any game that has unskippable cutscenes should have the ability to save before and after those cutscenes so that those who don't want to sit through it again don't have to in case of a game over.
You sound soft and unskilled.
I bet you bitch about "IMBA" when you play anything online. You must get BTFO constantly.
No, cause I curb stomp faggots like you who think that they're always right. Put your mouth on the curb nigger.
That's probably the most retarded question I have ever heard - well today at least.
Save when ever the fuck you want, saving rarely only means you have to replay more content over and over again if you fail. Save scumming, going back to a previous save state even though you didn't hit a game over state is completely different and there we might be able to argue that it's pussy footing. Turning a game into a grind, just because you don't save enough is simply a fucking waste of time.
Massive savescummer detected. Do you work for Polygon perchance?
I agree, dynamically raising and lowering the difficulty of the game on the player performance is the best compromise.
You kick ass, you get tougher enemies and a difficulty increase, but you also get better rewards.
You do worse, the game becomes easier, but you get less rewards.
I think this is one of the best overall forms of balance you can have in your game.
The devs just have to be careful and not make harder enemies bullet sponges, instead have them hit extra hard, while only taking slightly more damage, the challenge shouldn't be from hitting the same shit 600 times, it should be from the danger of being two shotted if you aren't fast enough.
That's offensive to savescummers.
Polygon nu-players want auto-saving and every step to be a checkpoint. Manually saving breaks the "gaming immersion as an art form".
Hitman had a limited amount of saves per mission
Infinite saves on Rookie
7 Saves on normal
3 Saves on Expert
0 Saves on Professional
Brutal
Fuck that noise. If I play badly I want to get the shit kicked out of me, not have the CPU hold back.
?
Saves are for going back once you're done doing what you went forward to do.
You're not a massive stinking pleb are you?
You're not actually saving in case you fuck something up are you?
It's mostly just that it's more fun when it feels like something is at risk. Save scumming ruins the fun.
I think a good a good system to try would be a punishment for scumsaving ….like a little drop in stats or gold or whatever in the game on the amount of time you select that saving, so it counts like 2/3 and if you load more you get the punishment….
Let's see an example, Xcom if was more fair in RNG and you savescum you get a drop in states on a random soldier.
Or a CK2 if you play not on ironman and load the same save 3times you get a bad trait
Don't know how good can be tho
and sorry if I express myself badly, I'm drunk
I savescum and meta-rp that my toon has the ability to predict the future.
That's why I like E.Y.E.
I save after cutscenes or clearing a room.
I never manually load games once playing, (or suicide), even if it looks hopeless.
Feel pretty fair to me.
Except that you basically have minimal punishment for death…So why bother?
The only game you mentioned that I've played was Quake, and I only saved between levels and when I quit the game. It depends on how far back you go/how long the levels are and how tedious it is to get back to where you were. If it's a game that's known to crash, save all the time in case it crashes. If the game has a bug that fucks up your progress then savescum it, since it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.
If it's a management sim like Rollercoaster Tycoon, don't even think about loading a save if you aren't on the title screen. Sometimes savescumming RNG in RPGs is fine if all it does is spare you from grinding and you aren't keeping yourself from gitting gud. (like those fucking beans in Superstar Saga)
...
Just unbind the key, you lazy faggot
Eh, it depends really.
Fps - just when the game triggers set save points. Works out fine.
Rts - At the end of the map/batlle/mission.
Rpg - Older games usally have set ways to save, like at an inn. When I played Skyrim for the first and last time, I turned off all save functions and only allowed saving at inns or a safe house. Kinda have to do that with all modern games now adays. Pre set save standards.
As for older games and and emulation. I never use save state, unless the password system is retarded.
As for Iron man, only done it with a few games, cause then it kinda just becomes "speedrunning". Which is bad. I watched my friend savescum through the whole MegaMan Nes series. That is something I would never do.
I try to never save, otherwise it just ruins the game. Quicksaving should have never been invented. The worst thing is when games seem DESIGNED around quicksaving. Good games you should be able to beat without saving, though it doesn't mean it should be easy.
Stop posting on Holla Forums and get those other games immediately user!!!