ONLY SAVE when you're going to do something stupid

#1 Posted by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

I did this a lot with fallout3 and skyrim, which games did you do this in?

#2 Posted by Korvus (2987 posts) -

If you mean doing something stupid on purpose and then reload, I do it all the time. If you mean not saving at all, except for those situations...I don't have the time or patience to redo content due to my char dying, so I save pretty much all the time.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

Dark Souls is not an Option. I think.

I did this in Bioshock and Mass Effect, when ever I wanted to see what effect special abilities have when used unorthodoxly, namely with Cyclone Trap plasmid and Singularity Skill.

Also I'm sure alot people do it with Stealth games too since they rely on common sense but do a sh!itty job of executing common sense.

#4 Posted by loafofgame (425 posts) -

Naah, I save a lot if I can. I do appreciate the tension of not being able to save and with games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim I realise I might just be able to do a permadeath walktrough, but actively or intentionally putting my progress at risk is not something I like to do. I do not scare away from games that severely penalise you for making mistakes, but I do use whatever options the game offers me and if that means there's a quicksave option, then I will relentlessly spam that thing. Besides, you never know when a decision you thought was good turns out to be a bad one. ;-)

#5 Edited by spike6958 (4686 posts) -

Yeah, if I got bored in Skyrim I'd save, butcher a city, and then reload like nothing happened.

#6 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69895 posts) -

Shouldn't this be a rule with all games that have manual saves?

#7 Posted by BlackGenjii (225 posts) -

@ariabed said:

I did this a lot with fallout3 and skyrim, which games did you do this in?

The very same games for me... plus add Oblivion and New Vegas.

#8 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

@ loafofgame

Sounds like your a masochist.

Not many people thrive on Negative reinforcement.

#9 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6701 posts) -

Yeah, if I got bored in Skyrim I'd save, butcher a city, and then reload like nothing happened.

You sound like a fun person to be around.

#10 Edited by Jacanuk (4006 posts) -

Shouldn't this be a rule with all games that have manual saves?

So all games should be as crappy as DarkSouls you mean?

#11 Posted by Jacanuk (4006 posts) -

Naah, I save a lot if I can. I do appreciate the tension of not being able to save and with games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim I realise I might just be able to do a permadeath walktrough, but actively or intentionally putting my progress at risk is not something I like to do. I do not scare away from games that severely penalise you for making mistakes, but I do use whatever options the game offers me and if that means there's a quicksave option, then I will relentlessly spam that thing. Besides, you never know when a decision you thought was good turns out to be a bad one. ;-)

Ya i agree here with Loaf, i dont mind being pushed and have my skills tested, but i sure also like to just have some fun and relax and not get stressed out. So if there is a option like quick save or save i will use it.

#12 Posted by geniobastardo (1295 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

Shouldn't this be a rule with all games that have manual saves?

So all games should be as crappy as DarkSouls you mean?

No no no no no no please no!

#13 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69895 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

Shouldn't this be a rule with all games that have manual saves?

So all games should be as crappy as DarkSouls you mean?

No, i meant for everyone that plays games need to save often

#14 Posted by Byshop (11085 posts) -

The ability to quicksave or save anywhere is absolutely necessary in big open world style games like Skyrim or Fallout, but my only issue is that some game designers use a quicksave option as a way to mitigate bad game design. Stealth games are often particularly guilty of this, where in difficult sections the player might literally save every 10 feet. Move to new cover, save, move to new cover, save. This is why I like systems that games like Hitman use, where you can save anywhere but you have a limited number of saves to use per area.

I understand the desire to just veg while playing a game sometimes, but I also like some of my games to have consequence or require me to get good at them rather than just trial and error my way to eventual victory.

-Byshop

#15 Posted by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

@Byshop: yeah I like limited saves, it incorporates saving into the strategy of your gameplay.

#16 Edited by Jacanuk (4006 posts) -

@Byshop said:

The ability to quicksave or save anywhere is absolutely necessary in big open world style games like Skyrim or Fallout, but my only issue is that some game designers use a quicksave option as a way to mitigate bad game design. Stealth games are often particularly guilty of this, where in difficult sections the player might literally save every 10 feet. Move to new cover, save, move to new cover, save. This is why I like systems that games like Hitman use, where you can save anywhere but you have a limited number of saves to use per area.

I understand the desire to just veg while playing a game sometimes, but I also like some of my games to have consequence or require me to get good at them rather than just trial and error my way to eventual victory.

-Byshop

Hmm, im having a bit of trouble understanding your logic here Byshop.

So because game devs does not limit "saves" its their fault and only because of bad game design?

Thats some strange logic there, because as i see it, how a gamer uses a mechanic is really up to him, so if you don't like saving then dont, its not a deciding factor if a game is badly designed.

#17 Posted by Behardy24 (2744 posts) -

Yea, I do that a lot if I am attempting something risky that may result in my character's death or a downgrade of karma.

#18 Posted by loafofgame (425 posts) -

@ loafofgame

Sounds like your a masochist.

Not many people thrive on Negative reinforcement.

I can see why some of my phrasing might give rise to that opinion, but I wouldn't consider myself a masochist. At its most basic level a masochist derives pleasure from unpleasant experiences. I wouldn't consider the penalties in some videogames as unpleasant experiences. As with all games, they're obstacles that are meant to be challenging, meant to teach you something in order to topple them. But if I reach a point where I feel I can't overcome a particular obstacle (or where it would require an unpleasant amount of effort), it would seize to be enjoyable and I would stop, whereas a masochist would continue playing. And as I said, I don't go looking for ways to hinder or compromise my progress. For a masochist overcoming the obstacle is not the aim, because that would end the pleasure of suffering.

#19 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

@ loafofgame

In the case of Penalties for failure.... The challenge is higher for those who fail. In Dark Souls 2 you lose abit of maximum HP and drop your souls, in Bioshock Infinite you lose cash everytime you die.... But you can't get that money back... And yet money is essential for upgrading your stats to keep up with the boating stats of the enemies. In other words... The more you fail... The more you fail. The game is easier if you avoid failure in the 1st place, its more punishing than challenging. And thats just a dumb way to execute challenge in a video game.

A better way would be to change what failure is.... They can make the actuall process of succeeding very difficult but, and remove the concept of dying all together. So instead of dying... You'l just be stuck and that will be your failure state, no penalties needed.

This was my Experience with Bayonetta... Dying is no biggie, you basicly restart the encounter with full health, and try again,until your skill improve enough to succeed. Its just like a Puzzle game, by making the process of succeeding a truly challenging endeavor then lack of progress is the failure.

This is my argument for why Prince Of Persia 2008's difficulty isthe same as the other POP games.

#20 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18214 posts) -

I get obsessive compulsive when I have quicksaves, that's why I prefer checkpoints lol

#21 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

^ Especially in Scary Games^

its Reload Weapons followed by F5.

#22 Posted by Archangel3371 (15284 posts) -

I save very often as long as the game allows it as well as having at least 5 different save files that I'll alternate in overwriting especially in RPG's.

#23 Posted by johnd13 (7930 posts) -

I quicksave all the time. Time is of the essence, don't want to lose any of my progress.

#24 Posted by Byshop (11085 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Byshop said:

The ability to quicksave or save anywhere is absolutely necessary in big open world style games like Skyrim or Fallout, but my only issue is that some game designers use a quicksave option as a way to mitigate bad game design. Stealth games are often particularly guilty of this, where in difficult sections the player might literally save every 10 feet. Move to new cover, save, move to new cover, save. This is why I like systems that games like Hitman use, where you can save anywhere but you have a limited number of saves to use per area.

I understand the desire to just veg while playing a game sometimes, but I also like some of my games to have consequence or require me to get good at them rather than just trial and error my way to eventual victory.

-Byshop

Hmm, im having a bit of trouble understanding your logic here Byshop.

So because game devs does not limit "saves" its their fault and only because of bad game design?

Thats some strange logic there, because as i see it, how a gamer uses a mechanic is really up to him, so if you don't like saving then dont, its not a deciding factor if a game is badly designed.

No, I mean that I've played games where incrementally quicksaving is pretty much the only way to proceed, so while there are certain game times where a quicksave/save anywhere is helpful there are other games where it's used to make up for poor game balance. Kind of like a game with regenerating health because there's no way to make it through without constantly taking damage or games where there's a chicken pot pie every two minutes to balance out the damage you pretty much have to take to proceed.

-Byshop

#25 Edited by loafofgame (425 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: I get your point, but I was really only addressing your use of the word 'masochist'. These penalties aren't necessarily inherently unpleasant in the context of a game (I can't speak for any of the games you mention, since I haven't played them), nor are they desired or aimed for, and masochism really requires both of the aforementioned factors.

Masochism doesn't just rely on negative reinforcement, it relies on enjoying negative experiences. If you think I'm a masochist then every gamer is a masochist, because every game has some form of failure as negative feedback and we voluntarily and repeatedly confront ourselves with that risk to fail. We all thrive on that failure, with or without penalties. Why would you go through the constant agony of retrying that level in Bayonetta? Failure is the constant negative feedback there. You failed. You failed again. You failed again. Yet you continue, because you don't want to fail. Penalties don't make the masochist. A desire for failure does.

#26 Posted by Korvus (2987 posts) -

@johnd13 said:

I quicksave all the time. Time is of the essence, don't want to lose any of my progress.

Yep, being able to just alt+f4 out of a game at any time (or only having to wait for the cutscene to finish) and go do something else is great when you don't have much time. I don't mind games without a quicksave if that's how the game was designed, but I play them a lot less than the games I can just say "Hey, I have 10 minutes, let's do a bit more of that mission".

#27 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

@ loafofgame

Good Point !

Also I find Bayonetta's combat so good that its enjoable even when I die.

You know good gameplay is good gameplay even you suck at it. :D !

I also got the same satisfaction in DiRT 3 finnishing in 2nd instead of 1st. I do this to build immunity to both rewards and penalties. :p

#28 Posted by thereal25 (328 posts) -

@ariabed said:

I did this a lot with fallout3 and skyrim, which games did you do this in?

I generally don't do stupid things in computer games.

But, speaking of saving, I find that with Skryrim it pays to save often.

Nothing worse than having some enemy overcome you surprisingly fast and then realizing that your last save was like 20 minutes ago!!!

#29 Edited by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

@Archangel3371: I save very often as long as the game allows it as well as having at least 5 different save files that I'll alternate in overwriting especially in RPG's.

REPLY:

There's nothing worst than overwriting a save and realising you missed something or did something wrong and you can't go back and replay.

#30 Edited by thereal25 (328 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@Archangel3371: I save very often as long as the game allows it as well as having at least 5 different save files that I'll alternate in overwriting especially in RPG's.

There's nothing worst than overwriting a save and realising you missed something or did something wrong and you can't go back and replay.

Yes, another reason to save often!

#31 Edited by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: @thereal25: even though saving is detrimental to making progress in the levels/areas of some games I think it can also break the immersion of a game, I mean is it more satisfying to play through an area/level flawlessly or keep saving bit by bit till you get through it?

#32 Posted by Old_Gooseberry (3470 posts) -

I save in games every time I think of it incase my pc locks up, or the game crashes, or the power goes out... also if im gonna do something 'stupid'

i hate games with bad save systems... i want to save and continue right where i left off, not at some crappy checkpoint.. or worse yet, at the beginning of some area with everything respawned and having to do everything all over again.

#33 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

@ Ariabed

Dying and Repeating a section section even once is also an immersion killer. Plus Immersion is overated ! :p

#34 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12195 posts) -

Most games that don't kill you in stupid, unexpected ways. Skyrim's one of the worst offenders. Too many times I died by walking into cooking utensils.

#35 Edited by Ariabed (1101 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: "Plus Immersion is overated ! :p"

You take that back!

#36 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10039 posts) -

@ Ariabed

I think Immersion is purely dependent on the player and extremely subjective. I don't think its fair to developers when somebody says their game wasn't immersive enough. I mean... Anything can throw off immersion, for me its a HUD.

#37 Posted by donmuath (53 posts) -

Yeah, if I got bored in Skyrim I'd save, butcher a city, and then reload like nothing happened.

Hahaha, same here. It was like Whiterun was caught up in a slaughter-y time loop.