Should SP games start incorporating PERMANENT SAVE ???

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

Now hear me out before you have a nerd rage.

I love RPGs, always have, always will. I used to have a lot more time on my hands years ago which made it possible for me to actually finish SP RPGs.

I also play MMO RPGs, and the main reason that they are more popular with me currently than SP RPGs is cause of PERMANENT SAVE.

What I mean by this is that when you make a decision in an MMO, it sticks and it's for good. There is no reloading the level, there is no trial and error with a past save, it's final. Sure, you can buyback items, you can respec etc, but all that costs money. There is no such thing as "I'll just reload this part and try it another way".

My question is, should SP Games, and not necessarily RPGs, start having permanent saves?

Not on a server, on the local hard drive but automatically controlled by the game and permanent.

There are things like Quick-Saves now which are automatic, but you can still manually save and reload.

I also know there are games which offer this as an advanced difficulty (example, Witcher with limited saves), but this is higher level of play style, not the normal difficulty.

I am not talking about EVERY game, but genre like RPGs where decisions should matter, and a few other types.

Thoughts?

#2 Edited by madrocketeer (2636 posts) -

I know what you mean. XCOM has a permanent save option, which forces you to use a single automatically updating save slot, so all decisions, deaths and stat boost from promotions are final. I don't use it (because of the last part), but if it's an option, I don't see why not. Play the game your way, I say.

#3 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@madrocketeer said:

I know what you mean. XCOM has a permanent save option, which forces you to use a single automatically updating save slot. I don't use it, but if it's an option, I don't see why not. Play the game your way, I say.

That's good to hear that some games have that as an option, but I reckon mostly for RPGs and some other genres, have it as default. When you kill someone, he's dead. When you decide a fate of a quest, that fate is decided. Done, Permanent, No going back... would make the game a lot more like real life.

#4 Edited by nutcrackr (12628 posts) -

Options are good, and if people want to restrict themselves to only one state for the entire game then I see no problem with that as long as normal save works fine.

#5 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@nutcrackr said:

Options are good, and if people want to restrict themselves to only one state for the entire game then I see no problem with that as long as normal save works fine.

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

#6 Edited by madrocketeer (2636 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

Meh, I play games with permanent saves all the time; Torchlight II, FTL and State of Decay comes to mind. I just accept it and do the best I can, or if it gets seriously unplayable, I just circumvent using backup copies of game save files.

#7 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

#8 Posted by harry_james_pot (10890 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@nutcrackr said:

Options are good, and if people want to restrict themselves to only one state for the entire game then I see no problem with that as long as normal save works fine.

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

How about this.. When you start a new playthrough you have to choose between "normal" or "no-save" modes, and then you can't change that choice for the entirety of that specific playthrough. That way everyone gets what they want.

Having no saves in an RPG would deter a lot of people from buying it, including myself.

#9 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@madrocketeer said:

@FelipeInside said:

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

Meh, I play games with permanent saves all the time; Torchlight II, FTL and State of Decay comes to mind. I just accept it and do the best I can, or if it gets seriously unplayable, I just circumvent using backup copies of game save files.

Cool, didn't know those had permanent saves. Is it because it's server based?

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Read my posts more carefully.

#10 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -
@harry_james_pot said:

@FelipeInside said:

@nutcrackr said:

Options are good, and if people want to restrict themselves to only one state for the entire game then I see no problem with that as long as normal save works fine.

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

How about this.. When you start a new playthrough you have to choose between "normal" or "no-save" modes, and then you can't change that choice for the entirety of that specific playthrough. That way everyone gets what they want.

Having no saves in an RPG would deter a lot of people from buying it, including myself.

Yes, that would work since the option would be at the start and then no going back. I like it...

@madrocketeer said:

@FelipeInside said:

Good point, but personally having the option there to reload when I make a mistake makes me want to use it. I would like to see a good RPG released with nothing but permanent save and see what the general reaction is. IMO makes the game even more immersive and life-like.

Meh, I play games with permanent saves all the time; Torchlight II, FTL and State of Decay comes to mind. I just accept it and do the best I can, or if it gets seriously unplayable, I just circumvent using backup copies of game save files.

Cool, didn't know those had permanent saves. Is it because it's server based?

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Read my posts more carefully.

#11 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Read my posts more carefully.

I read your post extremely carefully the first time. You want people to play the way you think they should. I think that's bullshit. I don't want to play the way you think I should. So again, concern yourself more with how you game, not how I game.

#12 Edited by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Read my posts more carefully.

I read your post extremely carefully the first time. You want people to play the way you think they should. I think that's bullshit. I don't want to play the way you think I should. So again, concern yourself more with how you game, not how I game.

No, I said that what drives me more towards MMOs is because of the permanent save. I never said EVERY game and EVERY gamer should go permanent save. I wanted to see people's thoughts and would like to see one RPG try it to see the general reaction.

#13 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Read my posts more carefully.

I read your post extremely carefully the first time. You want people to play the way you think they should. I think that's bullshit. I don't want to play the way you think I should. So again, concern yourself more with how you game, not how I game.

No, I said that what drives me more towards MMOs is because of the permanent save. I never said EVERY game and EVERY gamer should go permanent save. I wanted to see people's thoughts and would like to see one RPG try it to see the general reaction.

Wanting the system to be a part of a single game is still the same as wanting someone to play the game the way you think they should. I simply don't agree with that. I think its perfectly fine that you like that type of system. I don't and I don't want it forced on me even for a single game.

#14 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (690 posts) -

Took me a while to understand what you mean by a permanent save. I guess it's ok as an option to choose at the start of the game, but if that's the only way to play it it would put off a lot of potential buyers. It's like what M$ did with Windows 8, they thought they came up with something better than the start menu, maybe it is indeed better, but I just don't care, I want my start menu, you know what I mean?

#15 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

said EVERY game and EVERY gamer should go permanent save. I wanted to see people's thoughts and would like to see one RPG try it to see the general reaction.

Wanting the system to be a part of a single game is still the same as wanting someone to play the game the way you think they should. I simply don't agree with that. I think its perfectly fine that you like that type of system. I don't and I don't want it forced on me even for a single game.

Like Harry James said, best would be to have an option at the start to choose between the two, everyone happy.

@PfizersaurusRex said:

Took me a while to understand what you mean by a permanent save. I guess it's ok as an option to choose at the start of the game, but if that's the only way to play it it would put off a lot of potential buyers. It's like what M$ did with Windows 8, they thought they came up with something better than the start menu, maybe it is indeed better, but I just don't care, I want my start menu, you know what I mean?

I get what you mean. When new things come along I always try them with an open mind, and if they are better, I use them, if not, then don't. Easy.

#16 Edited by KHAndAnime (13867 posts) -

Certainly - I really like Dark Souls and M&B style saving. Diablo 2's B.Net multiplayer was like this too. I think it's a great idea, but of course, people in general don't like difficulty and people prefer to breeze through play throughs in as few sittings as possible. Tons of people absolutely would refuse to have to play a game over again because they developed their character like an idiot. Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

#17 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

Certainly - I really like Dark Souls and M&B style saving. Diablo 2's B.Net multiplayer was like this too. I think it's a great idea, but of course, people in general don't like difficulty and people prefer to breeze through play throughs in as few sittings as possible. Tons of people absolutely would refuse to have to play a game over again because they developed their character like an idiot. Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

You make good and valid points, yet those same people play MMOs, hahahahahahah... go figure.

#18 Posted by wis3boi (31456 posts) -

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

#19 Edited by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

#20 Edited by wis3boi (31456 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@wis3boi said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

If all you can do these days are strawmans...

#21 Edited by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@FelipeInside said:

@wis3boi said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

If all you can do these days are strawmans...

My question was valid, trust you to come back with a response totally off-topic (like you seemed to do these days)

I'm not saying permanent save should be the norm, but surely there will be a new save system in the future, and people might need to adapt to it.

#22 Posted by KHAndAnime (13867 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@KHAndAnime said:

Certainly - I really like Dark Souls and M&B style saving. Diablo 2's B.Net multiplayer was like this too. I think it's a great idea, but of course, people in general don't like difficulty and people prefer to breeze through play throughs in as few sittings as possible. Tons of people absolutely would refuse to have to play a game over again because they developed their character like an idiot. Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

You make good and valid points, yet those same people play MMOs, hahahahahahah... go figure.

It's not surprising, almost all popular MMO's these days have no consequences. You can develop your characters any way you wish and then respec once a new patch comes out favoring a different build with little to no cost. There's no more consequence for death anymore either. I couldn't imagine these people playing Everquest or UO back in the day...they'd quit after three hours.

#23 Posted by Planeforger (15790 posts) -

Plenty of recent RPGs do this - roguelikes get released every few weeks nowadays.

#24 Edited by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@FelipeInside said:

@KHAndAnime said:

Certainly - I really like Dark Souls and M&B style saving. Diablo 2's B.Net multiplayer was like this too. I think it's a great idea, but of course, people in general don't like difficulty and people prefer to breeze through play throughs in as few sittings as possible. Tons of people absolutely would refuse to have to play a game over again because they developed their character like an idiot. Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

You make good and valid points, yet those same people play MMOs, hahahahahahah... go figure.

It's not surprising, almost all popular MMO's these days have no consequences. You can develop your characters any way you wish and then respec once a new patch comes out favoring a different build with little to no cost. There's no more consequence for death anymore either. I couldn't imagine these people playing Everquest or UO back in the day...they'd quit after three hours.

Funny that I actually had the same conversation at lunch with a fellow gamer.

If I was to create an MMO, I would release it but make reaching max level something that takes about 6 months, even playing every day. On top of that I would have penalties on death... like loss of XP PLUS a penalty on XP for the next 5 hours or something.

By the time people start reaching max level, I would have tons of endgame content ready to go.

But like you said, you could do this with the older generation, these days the attention span of gamers is a few hours...

#25 Posted by nutcrackr (12628 posts) -
@FelipeInside said:

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

How old are you talking? Old games had quick save....Thief 1 and 2, Max Payne 1 and 2. Half Life..Deus Ex etc.

These days you get checkpoint saves more often because it's easier for co-op and a few other reasons.

#26 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@nutcrackr said:
@FelipeInside said:

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

How old are you talking? Old games had quick save....Thief 1 and 2, Max Payne 1 and 2. Half Life..Deus Ex etc.

These days you get checkpoint saves more often because it's easier for co-op and a few other reasons.

I'm old lol.... I still remember games when they didn't have quicksave at all. Heck, I remember games when they didn't have saves at all...hahahahahah... (showing my age here)

#27 Posted by Kh1ndjal (2484 posts) -

the presence of permanent saves in MMOs isn't a feature.

they exist because it's a limitation of the genre and technical limitations of said genre. all permanent saves that can be avoided in genres, already are. Respeccing, changing character names/races/professions and all other choices made by the player that do not have permanent impact are in the game because they don't have to be permanent, not because people think of permanent saves as a feature. permanent saves are not something people want, because as others have mentioned, it is a choice.

#28 Posted by Horgen (110151 posts) -

Having it as a choice would be nice

#29 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13591 posts) -

Doesn't matter. People will restart the game just for an oppertunity to retry. 10 hours or in 600 hours in. It just doesn't really matter in an RPG.

Now for Open Ended Stealth games... Well thats a whole other animal entirely.

#30 Posted by -wildflower- (2866 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

You're also forgetting that there's been a whole generation raised thinking that nobody has to lose, everybody gets an award for participating, and every choice, no matter how inane, is valid. We've become special and pampered little snowflakes.

#31 Edited by Cwagmire21 (5896 posts) -

@-wildflower- said:

@KHAndAnime said:

Majority of PC gamers here at Gamespot wouldn't even consider playing through a lengthy, hard game if they couldn't quicksave before every fight - this is the ADD/ADHD generation after all.

You're also forgetting that there's been a whole generation raised thinking that nobody has to lose, everybody gets an award for participating, and every choice, no matter how inane, is valid. We've become special and pampered little snowflakes.

Remember when we made fun of old people talking about the good ole days?

Ya, you're doing that now...

#32 Posted by Gallowhand (476 posts) -

I see nothing wrong with it being an option for those who want it. However, personally I have limited time to play games these days, so I just get annoyed if I have to replay sections of a game due to the wrong decision leading to a fail state. That's one of the reasons why I avoid rogue-likes.

#33 Posted by wis3boi (31456 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@wis3boi said:

@FelipeInside said:

@wis3boi said:

@airshocker said:

No. Worry less about how other people play and more about yourself. If somebody wants to reload their game to try something different that doesn't affect you in the slightest.

So let me ask you guys this:

Did you complain when QuickSave became the norm, or so popular that most games use it now? Quick Save never used to exist, mainly due to hardware restrictions, but now it's in 9 out of 10 games.

If all you can do these days are strawmans...

My question was valid, trust you to come back with a response totally off-topic (like you seemed to do these days)

I'm not saying permanent save should be the norm, but surely there will be a new save system in the future, and people might need to adapt to it.

It's hardly off topic, suggesting you dont know what a strawman even is...but any case...Let me use the rpg Deus Ex HR as an example. It has no perma-save feature. I can play that way if I want to by saving in a single slot every time. I don't need a developer's permission to play how I want to. If a gamer can't control their own actions and play how they want, that's their problem, not the dev teams'. You have vast swaths of options without them having to be laid out for you by hand. I played through Deus Ex once using nothing but the 10m pistol. Did I need a setting to restrict me? No, I did it myself. This is why I find this particular topic absurd because I can make my own options

#34 Posted by nicecall (428 posts) -

I like having option of having different saves so i can try out anything. Also I like having backups of my saves as a play through a game incase a savegame becomes corrupted... i've had this happen quite a few times with games usually from lockups or game crashes.

Its up to the player how they play a game, its your choice whether you load a game up and try something else... i don't think they should punish regular people if some random hardcore people want a game that screws them over with bad save game features.

#35 Edited by BattleSpectre (6210 posts) -

Felipe I'm about to slap with my pimp hand, how dare you man.

Nah in all seriousness developers should give you a choice to play a game like that, but not force it. I personally love restarting to a previous save and trying something a different way, especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas if I wanted to shoot up a town or something, lots of fun and I know I don't have to stick with the decision.

#36 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (690 posts) -

@BattleSpectre: I just didn't have the heart to blow up Megaton, I had to youtube it LOL.

#37 Edited by KHAndAnime (13867 posts) -

@Cwagmire21 said:

Remember when we made fun of old people talking about the good ole days?

Ya, you're doing that now...

Usually when it comes to videogames, it's the other way around :P

Example: Old people don't know how to use computers, so they get made fun of. Or old people don't know how to play videogames, so they get made fun of.

Now things are changing a bit. The younger crowd should be more proficient at games considering how early this type of technology is pushed on them, but instead there's a bit of an inverse effect going on. Games on average have become easier and easier over the past decades - and there are tons of more resources available now to help you beat them. The younger crowd doesn't likely know how to play through an entire videogame without GameFAQ's manual in their lap or a Youtube playthrough on their phone. Give the average 14 year old any of the earlier Castlevania games (or even Symphony of the Night) and I have a funny feeling that they wouldn't be able to make any progress whatsoever without looking up guides online.

Now we live in an time where games that aren't very difficult (like Souls series), are considered the "toughest games of all time" by gamers today, despite these games being incredibly EASY. It's not surprising that most people here wouldn't play a game unless they could breeze through it by being able to save as much as they like, whenever they like. I'm not going to say all younger games suck at games because that obviously isn't true, but I will say that it takes significantly less willpower to complete a game these days, and thus it's less rewarding to complete them.

Personally, I'm *huge* on challenge in videogames. If I'm not feeling challenged, I feel like I could be reading a book, or watching a film/show instead. And unlike a videogame - a book, film, or show would likely be a lot more educational and entertaining on a story-telling level. Seems like now if I want to be challenged, all I have left to play is multiplayer.

#38 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@BattleSpectre said:

Felipe I'm about to slap with my pimp hand, how dare you man.

Nah in all seriousness developers should give you a choice to play a game like that, but not force it. I personally love restarting to a previous save and trying something a different way, especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas if I wanted to shoot up a town or something, lots of fun and I know I don't have to stick with the decision.

Yes, the best method (like another poster said) would be to have an option at the start to choose between normal saves and permanent saves.

#39 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@BattleSpectre said:

Felipe I'm about to slap with my pimp hand, how dare you man.

Nah in all seriousness developers should give you a choice to play a game like that, but not force it. I personally love restarting to a previous save and trying something a different way, especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas if I wanted to shoot up a town or something, lots of fun and I know I don't have to stick with the decision.

Yes, the best method (like another poster said) would be to have an option at the start to choose between normal saves and permanent saves.

No, it's really not. If you want to play through without reloading previous parts you can do that. You don't need a special system.

#40 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@BattleSpectre said:

Felipe I'm about to slap with my pimp hand, how dare you man.

Nah in all seriousness developers should give you a choice to play a game like that, but not force it. I personally love restarting to a previous save and trying something a different way, especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas if I wanted to shoot up a town or something, lots of fun and I know I don't have to stick with the decision.

Yes, the best method (like another poster said) would be to have an option at the start to choose between normal saves and permanent saves.

No, it's really not. If you want to play through without reloading previous parts you can do that. You don't need a special system.

Why not? Everyone here always talks about choice/options to the gamer, so what's wrong with having more options and letting the player decide?

#41 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@BattleSpectre said:

Felipe I'm about to slap with my pimp hand, how dare you man.

Nah in all seriousness developers should give you a choice to play a game like that, but not force it. I personally love restarting to a previous save and trying something a different way, especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas if I wanted to shoot up a town or something, lots of fun and I know I don't have to stick with the decision.

Yes, the best method (like another poster said) would be to have an option at the start to choose between normal saves and permanent saves.

No, it's really not. If you want to play through without reloading previous parts you can do that. You don't need a special system.

Why not? Everyone here always talks about choice/options to the gamer, so what's wrong with having more options and letting the player decide?

Because you have the choice right now to play that way. Just because you don't have the willpower to do it unless you're being forced has nothing to do with the point.

#42 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@BattleSpectre said:

No, it's really not. If you want to play through without reloading previous parts you can do that. You don't need a special system.

Why not? Everyone here always talks about choice/options to the gamer, so what's wrong with having more options and letting the player decide?

Because you have the choice right now to play that way. Just because you don't have the willpower to do it unless you're being forced has nothing to do with the point.

What? with quicksaves you mean?

#43 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@BattleSpectre said:

No, it's really not. If you want to play through without reloading previous parts you can do that. You don't need a special system.

Why not? Everyone here always talks about choice/options to the gamer, so what's wrong with having more options and letting the player decide?

Because you have the choice right now to play that way. Just because you don't have the willpower to do it unless you're being forced has nothing to do with the point.

What? with quicksaves you mean?

You don't have to replay a previous part of the game to see if making a different choice would do anything. You have every capability to play the game once without reloading any previous parts. That is your issue, correct? You don't like people being able to go back and make different choices.

#44 Edited by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

What? with quicksaves you mean?

You don't have to replay a previous part of the game to see if making a different choice would do anything. You have every capability to play the game once without reloading any previous parts. That is your issue, correct? You don't like people being able to go back and make different choices.

I would like it to be like an MMO, where when you do a choice, it sticks. I mostly play games just with quicksaves and never load back with manual saves, problem with quicksaves is that sometimes they are too far apart, so if something goes wrong (game crashes etc), then I have to replay a portion of the game.

#45 Edited by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

What? with quicksaves you mean?

You don't have to replay a previous part of the game to see if making a different choice would do anything. You have every capability to play the game once without reloading any previous parts. That is your issue, correct? You don't like people being able to go back and make different choices.

I would like it to be like an MMO, where when you do a choice, it sticks. I mostly play games just with quicksaves and never load back with manual saves, problem with quicksaves is that sometimes they are too far apart, so if something goes wrong (game crashes etc), then I have to replay a portion of the game.

Then you should be using manual saves because that's what they are there for. You don't need a special system when you are fully capable of stopping yourself from loading a previous part of the game and redoing it to try and get a different outcome. It's all about willpower.

#46 Posted by FelipeInside (25658 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

Then you should be using manual saves because that's what they are there for. You don't need a special system when you are fully capable of stopping yourself from loading a previous part of the game and redoing it to try and get a different outcome. It's all about willpower.

I can, but what's wrong with having a system that does that automatically for me? instead of me pausing the game and saving all the time?

#47 Edited by KHAndAnime (13867 posts) -
@airshocker said:

Then you should be using manual saves because that's what they are there for. You don't need a special system when you are fully capable of stopping yourself from loading a previous part of the game and redoing it to try and get a different outcome. It's all about willpower.

That's horse shit. The developers are the ones making the game, remember? It's up to them entirely to determine the balance of the game's difficulty. Not the gamer's job.

Let's say people suggested taking out checkpoints in a game and replacing them with quicksaves. I can't artificially create a balanced challenge around a game I've never played before through manual saving, can I? I'd have to know how the entire game plays out before I could determine where it would be fair to place a manual save.

Same thing applies here: games that are made to have permament save systems are balanced for them. They would never put you in a situation requiring you to bring up a previous load. Games with quicksaves aren't balanced at all. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for example, you can quicksave yourself into situations you can't get out of - so the permasave system wouldn't work unless the game was changed drastically. Many games come out expecting you to be pressing the quicksave button like mad, making it pretty difficulty to create any semblance of a balanced challenge for myself.

If you can quicksave before every battle and do a regular save before every important choice - there is no longer a set obstacle for the gamer, nor is there any sense of accomplishment or failure.

#48 Posted by GarGx1 (2742 posts) -

No I don't agree that single player games should have 'permanent' saves, in the same that I don't care if people use cheats or trainers in SP either. No matter what you do with a single player experience it affects no one else.

I play most games on hard these days because 'normal' is the new easy. That doesn't mean that I expect everyone to play all games on hard just because of my preference.

Another reason for me to disagree would be seeing how games change, without having to go through it all again. An example of this is the Mass effect 3 ending, I got see all the potential endings without going through the entire game every time.

#49 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

@FelipeInside said:

@airshocker said:

Then you should be using manual saves because that's what they are there for. You don't need a special system when you are fully capable of stopping yourself from loading a previous part of the game and redoing it to try and get a different outcome. It's all about willpower.

I can, but what's wrong with having a system that does that automatically for me? instead of me pausing the game and saving all the time?

The fact that it's a waste of development time.

#50 Posted by airshocker (29858 posts) -
@KHAndAnime said:
@airshocker said:

Then you should be using manual saves because that's what they are there for. You don't need a special system when you are fully capable of stopping yourself from loading a previous part of the game and redoing it to try and get a different outcome. It's all about willpower.

That's horse shit. The developers are the ones making the game, remember? It's up to them entirely to determine the balance of the game's difficulty. Not the gamer's job.

Let's say people suggested taking out checkpoints in a game and replacing them with quicksaves. I can't artificially create a balanced challenge around a game I've never played before through manual saving, can I? I'd have to know how the entire game plays out before I could determine where it would be fair to place a manual save.

Same thing applies here: games that are made to have permament save systems are balanced for them. They would never put you in a situation requiring you to bring up a previous load. Games with quicksaves aren't balanced at all. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for example, you can quicksave yourself into situations you can't get out of - so the permasave system wouldn't work unless the game was changed drastically. Many games come out expecting you to be pressing the quicksave button like mad, making it pretty difficulty to create any semblance of a balanced challenge for myself.

If you can quicksave before every battle and do a regular save before every important choice - there is no longer a set obstacle for the gamer, nor is there any sense of accomplishment or failure.

No, it's about willpower. Nothing else.

Just because you don't think there's a sense of accomplishment or failure doesn't mean I think the same way.

The fact remains that you have every ability to do exactly what it is Felipe is proposing. You just want it forced on other people.