Save game system...

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

Post Reply
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3725
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 8th, 2018, 11:04 am

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am
...your various weird and wonderful analogies that are quite often totally unrelated to the actual situation.
Seriously...Why would they need to be; they still illustrate the intended point. This is intentional; the purpose of the analogy is to impart the point using a parallel, or even unhindered perspective by using something totally different that the other person understands.
"Build the game to the difficulty that you want it to be. Add a Save system that is appropriate for the gameplay, then add an Ironman option for the radicals out there."
And here we agree. ;)
*Except... for the Wild Wasteland trait in New Vegas. That should have just been the world as it was, and not require the player to waste a trait—for what was not that great anyway, but it at least had the potential to evoke the old mystery from the original games. :( That part shouldn't have been optional, and came across like having an embarrassing tradition, that they kept, but didn't really want to promote for those who might disapprove. :?
Wintermute_of_Cof wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 4:13 am
Gizmo wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 10:13 pm
the game resets those consequences every three game days
The number of days seems like the sort of thing that would be very easy to put into a setting.
But it's not. It's a fact that for all their nonsense (and undeniable business acumen), their games are impressive art —art that is fragile almost beyond belief. For example: Oblivion has food —everywhere. There is a reason for that. The NPC AI's are designed to get hungry... but if they cannot find enough food, they go nuts, and it' gets pretty weird... Neighbor's murdering each other for the vegetables in their inventory; cascade of combats, mass pickpocketing, and casting fireballs at their pets.

The game manages to keep up the illusion of their fantasy world for three days, and then resets; I doubt they picked that number arbitrarily... That's a lot of data to keep, and to record in the save game. However, I am not an expert on their technology; others (perhaps even here) are sure to have a more technically accurate description of the limitations.

**Still, the effect is the same, and problematic for RPGs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJX-tnuZ0c
Wintermute_of_Cof wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 4:18 am
Given that, at this point, BT4 is not going to be re-designed, can you explain to me what your objection is to adding save anywhere to BT4? The game will not be re-designed, the scenarios will not be changed, instead save anywhere will be "tacked on" - what is your objection to that?
Same answer as Woolfe. I haven't played it yet. I am not against totems or save-anywhere mechanics (per se), I have reservations against having both, because they cannot tailor the game for each, unless they have duplicated variations on the maps. Also... they might have chosen one of the methods over another for multi-platform reasons; (or some other reason). (Hypothetically) Would you be okay with a Save-Anywhere option only existing on the PC version? Such that PC & Mac users could IGNORE the totems, or have them not even be on the maps?

*This used to actually happen with games; back when there were platform specific versions that were constrained to the various limits of the platforms, and sometimes they just did things differently. I know of a whole series of strategy D&D games where the PC version included a turn-undo hotkey, that allowed the player to move across the map—even marginally interact with enemies, and then jump back to where they started, and have all of their action points restored. They could then do this again, and again after that... until they ended their turn; (or died from sustained damage...which was not undone by the hotkey).

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9777
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Save game system...

Post by Drool » October 8th, 2018, 2:23 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 11:04 am
*Except... for the Wild Wasteland trait in New Vegas. That should have just been the world as it was, and not require the player to waste a trait—for what was not that great anyway, but it at least had the potential to evoke the old mystery from the original games. :( That part shouldn't have been optional, and came across like having an embarrassing tradition, that they kept, but didn't really want to promote for those who might disapprove.
There was an issue where they felt some of the stuff was too silly. I don't remember if it was internal to Obsidian or if Bethesda was complaining. While it was pretty lackluster in the base game, they made pretty good use of it in the DLC, and more than one mod used it as a hook for weirdness too.

And frankly, most of the traits were pretty lackluster anyway, so I almost always took it.

CaptainPatch wrote: I am reminded of why I dropped out of the Wasteland 2 beta after having in there for a couple thousand posts. The endurance of some people to DEMAND that everyone else let them have their narrow version of what would be a "correct" game design.
It's called discussion, Patch. This is a discussion forum. It'd be rather pointless if everyone agreed on everything.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 8th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 11:04 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am
...your various weird and wonderful analogies that are quite often totally unrelated to the actual situation.
Seriously...Why would they need to be; they still illustrate the intended point. This is intentional; the purpose of the analogy is to impart the point using a parallel, or even unhindered perspective by using something totally different that the other person understands.
Oh I understand the purpose of an analogy, I probably get more of yours than most do.
But analogies can be good for resolving an argument in that they cut through a confusing concept and are a mutual point of reference that people understand and can draw experience from, and bad for resolving an argument in that they create more confusion, and enlarge the scope of the existing argument.

In General, yours tend to lean to the "not good" side...
Gizmo wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 11:04 am
"Build the game to the difficulty that you want it to be. Add a Save system that is appropriate for the gameplay, then add an Ironman option for the radicals out there."
And here we agree. ;)
Good you can stop arguing with me then :-)
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3725
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 8th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 4:51 pm
Good you can stop arguing with me then :-)
I didn't start. :?

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1191
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
Except for the people who don't want it to be optional for others to play a game in "easy mode" because it detracts from the reputation of the game and those who are successful at it.
Easily solved. You have achievements to that effect. Though honestly thats not a good reason in my books.
The achievements thing has come up before in previous debates on the subject. For one thing, achievements are generally tied to a particular delivery platform, such as Steam, and therefore not universal. For another thing, achievements don't really address the issue, because others can still be video tourists of the game and will not truly share the depth of experience of those whose sweat and careful decision-making were poured into the game. The association of video tourists with the game still cheapens it, even if I'm given some visible "badge of honor" for having played it without an unlimited save/restore safety net.
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
If you could choose whether to be graded on any your work in school or whether to be scored on any sporting competition in which you played, I think you would find that a lot of people had less incentive to do well or to compete. There are bragging rights to be had for succeeding at a challenge which applies equally to all competitors without exception.
It's not a multi player game. It's a single player game. Other than an individual's "Reputation" who gives a fig how they play the game.
In the past this was mostly honesty anyway. So many games have hacks/cracks etc that you could never truly "trust" it unless they were in a lab environment anyway.
I don't think it really matters whether it is multiplayer or single player. Sure a multiplayer game will be able to directly gauge the skill of the players against one another in a common environment. But, single player games that have any significant challenge also serve as gauges among all those who play them individually.

And, yes, I'm excluding cheating from this conversation. There will always be others who will do or say things to convince others that they're something that they're not. But, there will be plenty of people who will simply walk away from a game if they can't beat or it doesn't look like their kind of game. If I decide to play such a game and beat it, then I am differentiated from those who chose not to play it or those who couldn't beat it, regardless of any one individual's honesty or lack thereof.
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
Not saying that no game should have an "easy mode", but I definitely don't think that all games should have one. As for this Barrows Deep game, I would've certainly preferred if they had simply made save-and-quit and had not also implemented this luck stone stuff as well. Save-and-quit would've help preserved the tension of the original BT game while giving the convenience of quitting at any time. But, since it is not really a BT game, I actually don't care too much at this point. It's on the rubbish heap of history, as far as I'm concerned.
I actually didn't say anything about difficulty, just the save options, which are a separate thing.
Build the difficulty to the level you want. Then add in the save options after.
If you must think carefully before making decisions in game, in order to survive and not have to start over, then such a game is more difficult than one where you can wander around as a video tourist, firm in the knowledge that you have a safety net under you at all times. So, yes, the save system can influence the perceived difficulty of the game. Definitely not the only factor, but it is a factor.
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
Except when user A and user B socialize and the game becomes a point of discussion.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:15 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 4:51 pm
Good you can stop arguing with me then :-)
I didn't start. :?
Actually you did. I was talking to Noblesse and you quoted me :D
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
Easily solved. You have achievements to that effect. Though honestly thats not a good reason in my books.
The achievements thing has come up before in previous debates on the subject. For one thing, achievements are generally tied to a particular delivery platform, such as Steam, and therefore not universal. For another thing, achievements don't really address the issue, because others can still be video tourists of the game and will not truly share the depth of experience of those whose sweat and careful decision-making were poured into the game. The association of video tourists with the game still cheapens it, even if I'm given some visible "badge of honor" for having played it without an unlimited save/restore safety net.
Sorry. Not sorry. It's just not an issue for me. What you want to do outside the game, is up to you.

That said, plenty of games have internal achievements. The ones in Steam or whatever are just easier to manage.

How did you manage this back in the day? There have been plenty of "Free save" games throughout the years, are you telling me they were terrible because you couldn't compare because one guy was save scumming and one wasn't.

It's a single player game. Your opinion on how I play, is irrelevant to me. And I won't be giving you my opinion on how you play.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's not a multi player game. It's a single player game. Other than an individual's "Reputation" who gives a fig how they play the game.
In the past this was mostly honesty anyway. So many games have hacks/cracks etc that you could never truly "trust" it unless they were in a lab environment anyway.
I don't think it really matters whether it is multiplayer or single player. Sure a multiplayer game will be able to directly gauge the skill of the players against one another in a common environment. But, single player games that have any significant challenge also serve as gauges among all those who play them individually.

And, yes, I'm excluding cheating from this conversation. There will always be others who will do or say things to convince others that they're something that they're not. But, there will be plenty of people who will simply walk away from a game if they can't beat or it doesn't look like their kind of game. If I decide to play such a game and beat it, then I am differentiated from those who chose not to play it or those who couldn't beat it, regardless of any one individual's honesty or lack thereof.
Ok, so how did you guage if someone was cheating or not back in the day?
Until the advent of Achievements in Steam and the like, the only way was to go to an arcade or some such and get your high score up on the screen. (Here's hoping the scores weren't wiped when the machine was turned off)

You are arguing for something that is extremely niche and doesn't have a real standard outside of systems like steam achievements etc. You could never have known if someone was cheating or not.

And of course it matters, it's a single player game it will only affect the person playing. If you get upset that someone else cheated, that is your issue. Now in a multiplayer game, of course it is important, as anything that gives one person an advantage over the other outside of actual gameplay is bad.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
I actually didn't say anything about difficulty, just the save options, which are a separate thing.
Build the difficulty to the level you want. Then add in the save options after.
If you must think carefully before making decisions in game, in order to survive and not have to start over, then such a game is more difficult than one where you can wander around as a video tourist, firm in the knowledge that you have a safety net under you at all times. So, yes, the save system can influence the perceived difficulty of the game. Definitely not the only factor, but it is a factor.
Nope.
And I am not going to argue this, as I have done so numerous times before, and the argument becomes circular because neither side will accept a compromise.
So I will simply state my position, again, and leave it be.

You create the difficulty to be balanced where you want it.
You have your save system based on the assumption that people won't cheat, and dependant on the gameplay type. FPS vs RPG vs Platformer vs strategy vs tactical etc. The idea being that save function in a platformer where you have lives is an integral part of the gameplay, vs an RPG for example where the save functionality is simply a way of saving the gamestate in order to continue later, or to take a different path later etc.
Then add an Ironman mode for the radicals out there.

Done.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
Except when user A and user B socialize and the game becomes a point of discussion.
So because you 2 are niche enough to want to compare, I have to suffer?
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1876
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 9th, 2018, 8:43 am

Ok I've got to weigh in again, after catching up the last couple of pages...

1. Options are for player variation, to tailor their own experience to what they desire within the game created/envisioned by the developers.
2. Developers' choices are for their intended experience in gameplay, and unchangeable by the player who are restricted to that framework of an experience.

When the mere existence of a gameplay option affects a developer's design choice, then it's not a matter of turning it on or off, because the very design of the game (unchangeable) has been affected.

Case in point, I think the most obvious example: Grid-lock in BT4. (disclaimer: we don't yet know how it will be implemented, but using it for illustrative purposes)
At this point, we're assuming that the grid-locked play mode will be sub-par, likely problematic, and not the same overall experience as the trilogy (which it was purported to provide). This is because the game was designed around free-look and motion. So the experience provided by enabling grid-lock, while giving players the option, was affected by developer design decisions based on not having it on by default. Merely making it an option doesn't solve the issue for players who want that ability - no matter how much 'self-control' they have. It's not aesthetic option, it's a core mechanic option.

So the argument flows - is the save system an aesthetic one (did not affect static design decisions)? Or a core game mechanic alteration (affected static game design decisions)?

Posit:
* It affects enemy difficulty
Failure in combat can either result in fewer resources, more strategic management - or outright death - depending on the designed save system.
Example: Rail games with checkpoints typically have checkpoints before boss encounters, because it's known that failure usually means death, not 'now-go-restore-and-recoup' (in BT, that may be because you ran part way through to try again later).
BT4 has effectively implemented boss-encounter mechanic with every combat scenario. So checkpoints are necessary. Or on the contrary, because it's a checkpoint system, combat encounters are success-or-die-then-restore-a-save-to-try-again.

Merely turning on save-anywhere won't change that designed game mechanic. Instead it can make encounters a] easier for people who will save-before-every-boss-combat, or require the self-imposed restraint to not save. But combat will still be success-or-die. Die, and you still have to restore-a-save-and-try-again.

So, alternative theory...
Difficulty settings are sometimes a batch option that alters a number of game mechanics and properties, as opposed to strictly a save mechanic toggle. Perhaps the save system toggle should alter other aspects of the game to help with balance. Maybe an "Ironman" mode not only restricts saving to the AG, but adds a 'Run' feature that doesn't kill you, for example. That, IMO, would be one of the BIGGEST, most ESSENTIAL toggles to go with any kind of save-anywhere feature in BD. Because again, BT1-3 all had a 'Run' mechanic, and failure-as-death only meant you stuck it out to the bitter end and still failed (or the enemies ran away).
And I keep saying - BT3 (and 2 on some OS's) had save anywhere. But their combat mechanic was NOT what was implemented in BD.

As a side note...

I don't follow the bragging rights argument, not for single player games. That doesn't float for non-competitive people, and demanding stuff that appeals to competitive players (which is necessarily related to other players) does affect non-competitive players who couldn't care less about other players, and don't want their gameplay experience affected by others'. One's "value" of game completion will be different across different players, and non-competitive people won't care if their 'skill' or experience in completing is different, let alone less, than others'.
* we have this same 'competitive' discussion in another hobby of mine where people turn statistics into bragging rights, not realizing that there's no objective standard with some stats, so having "more" doesn't necessarily mean being "better", and most people just don't care - but yet are patronized because they have "less".

Meaning, building competitive features into a single player game will encourage denigration of non-competitive players, even if they don't care. That's not a good thing. The only kind of competitive content in a single player game should be that which encourages a player to compete with themselves. ie, achievements, personal records, etc. Sure, they can used by competitive people to compare with everyone else, but at least that's not a social mechanic that's encouraged in the game design.

Anyway, point being, restricting to save anywhere merely to add "value" to completing the game is subjective and isn't an argument I'd use to support save anywhere. Because to a single non-competitive player, comparative value is irrelevant. If they enjoyed the game, that's all that matters.

tl;dr:
So my argument really only stems from whether a game option DOES in fact affect core developer design decisions that directly influence the player's experience regardless of the option's state. Strictly speaking, the save mechanics CAN do this. Grid-lock option CAN do this.
The fundamental question is whether the developers cater the core design to one state or the other (and the combat-success-or-die static design mechanic is one such feature that IS affected by the save style option). But there are ways around it (such as a toggle affecting other game mechanics to help with balance, like allowing 'Run' in the combat mechanic if save-anywhere is disabled).
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

kanisatha
Initiate
Posts: 21
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 7:51 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by kanisatha » October 9th, 2018, 2:42 pm

I'm with Patch. There is no "discussion" here, just a handful of individuals who's attitude is that the game belongs to them and them alone and the rest of us can get lost. Why? Because "bragging rights" ... or something. Hilarious. Well, my comments are ultimately aimed at anyone from inXile who may be browsing this thread:

Adding an optional toggle to save anywhere anytime does NOT in any way affect people who don't want that feature.
Not including such an option does adversely affect people who want such an option.

It's a no-brainer, devs.

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1876
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 9th, 2018, 2:57 pm

kanisatha - please see my comment.
The existence of any toggleable feature may, or may not affect a developers' design decision that's a static aspect to the game experience. A save system can; the grid navigation system is a direct example with BT4; aesthetic options generally don't. It's not a clear cut "making it an option never affects fundamental gameplay". It all depends on whether the developers made design decisions that favour a game state related to the 'option' in question.

The save system may not. But I think I, for one, presented a game mechanic that very much does affect the gameplay, where inXile designed strictly based on the save system they implemented. (and this is not advocating for or against a particular save system - rather, I advocate that the gameplay be designed to be optimal either for a game without the option, or balanced well regardless of its toggled state if it is an option)

ETA: I generally prefer to see save-anywhere, and BT2&3 had that feature. But I also understand how having that save feature can indeed affect core game design decisions that might be different if there was an option to play with a different save mechanic, like what they implemented with BT4. Should BT4 have save anywhere? IMO yes, but if they make it optional, they should implement a Run ability for combat, which can have its fingers in the loot/random encounter design as well.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1191
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
Easily solved. You have achievements to that effect. Though honestly thats not a good reason in my books.
The achievements thing has come up before in previous debates on the subject. For one thing, achievements are generally tied to a particular delivery platform, such as Steam, and therefore not universal. For another thing, achievements don't really address the issue, because others can still be video tourists of the game and will not truly share the depth of experience of those whose sweat and careful decision-making were poured into the game. The association of video tourists with the game still cheapens it, even if I'm given some visible "badge of honor" for having played it without an unlimited save/restore safety net.
Sorry. Not sorry. It's just not an issue for me. What you want to do outside the game, is up to you.
Not sure what this statement is responding to.
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
How did you manage this back in the day? There have been plenty of "Free save" games throughout the years, are you telling me they were terrible because you couldn't compare because one guy was save scumming and one wasn't.
I've played plenty of games with unlimited save/restore. It's not the be-all, end-all for me and I didn't say that any game which had it was terrible. My argument is that a game's reputation (and appeal to some audiences) can be enhanced by not having unlimited save/restore.
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
It's a single player game. Your opinion on how I play, is irrelevant to me. And I won't be giving you my opinion on how you play.
It's not about how you play, but about how you can play. If you tell me that you beat a game which has an easy mode, I'm not likely going to be as interested in talking with you about it as if you beat one which does not have an easy mode option. Maybe we'll chat about some of the game content that we both saw, but we won't have that shared experience of "oh, you also just barely got out of that dungeon alive?!"

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's not a multi player game. It's a single player game. Other than an individual's "Reputation" who gives a fig how they play the game.
In the past this was mostly honesty anyway. So many games have hacks/cracks etc that you could never truly "trust" it unless they were in a lab environment anyway.
And, yes, I'm excluding cheating from this conversation. There will always be others who will do or say things to convince others that they're something that they're not. But, there will be plenty of people who will simply walk away from a game if they can't beat or it doesn't look like their kind of game. If I decide to play such a game and beat it, then I am differentiated from those who chose not to play it or those who couldn't beat it, regardless of any one individual's honesty or lack thereof.
Ok, so how did you guage if someone was cheating or not back in the day?
Like I said, there will always be cheaters. I assume that they are the minority and not any real factor. And, frankly, if they cheated, then they are unlikely to share the same feelings of peril as someone who played the game without cheating. That kind of thing can come out in conversation. It's really a non-issue to me. (And, if they tell me that they cheated in some original way that wasn't published or readily available, I'll probably end up having respect for them anyway, because of their resourcefulness. Likewise for people who author cracks, rather than those who merely use them.)
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
You are arguing for something that is extremely niche and doesn't have a real standard outside of systems like steam achievements etc. You could never have known if someone was cheating or not.

And of course it matters, it's a single player game it will only affect the person playing. If you get upset that someone else cheated, that is your issue. Now in a multiplayer game, of course it is important, as anything that gives one person an advantage over the other outside of actual gameplay is bad.
Where is all this stuff about cheating coming from? My argument, as presented thus far, doesn't have to do with cheating or cheaters.

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 6:44 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
Except when user A and user B socialize and the game becomes a point of discussion.
So because you 2 are niche enough to want to compare, I have to suffer?
Far more than 2 people, of course. And, how, exactly, do you suffer if not every game caters to you?
cmibl<enter>

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1191
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 9th, 2018, 5:37 pm

kanisatha wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 2:42 pm
I'm with Patch. There is no "discussion" here, just a handful of individuals who's attitude is that the game belongs to them and them alone and the rest of us can get lost. Why? Because "bragging rights" ... or something. Hilarious.
A few points:
  • I really don't care what happens to Barrows Deep at this point, unless they happen to make a decent Legacy Mode, which seems highly unlikely. So, as I mentioned to Patch, I don't care if you get unlimited save/restore for this game because I've lost interest in it ever being something that I'm going to enjoy playing (for many other reasons).
  • My arguments have been about a general philosophy than about this specific game. Arguing for unlimited save/restore as the default or as an option is every bit as selfish as arguing against making it available. You have no moral high ground here.
  • Differentiation matters to people. I'm pretty sure the alumni of most universities would get upset if their almae matres started selling diplomas that didn't involve any scholastic effort. I'm pretty sure military veterans would become upset if the armed forces they had served in starting selling medals for bravery and distinguished service to anyone who wanted them. What's so hilarious about people wanting games that set them apart from others, if they play them and/or beat them? Not every game has to be for everyone.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm

_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
How did you manage this back in the day? There have been plenty of "Free save" games throughout the years, are you telling me they were terrible because you couldn't compare because one guy was save scumming and one wasn't.
I've played plenty of games with unlimited save/restore. It's not the be-all, end-all for me and I didn't say that any game which had it was terrible. My argument is that a game's reputation (and appeal to some audiences) can be enhanced by not having unlimited save/restore.
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
It's a single player game. Your opinion on how I play, is irrelevant to me. And I won't be giving you my opinion on how you play.
It's not about how you play, but about how you can play. If you tell me that you beat a game which has an easy mode, I'm not likely going to be as interested in talking with you about it as if you beat one which does not have an easy mode option. Maybe we'll chat about some of the game content that we both saw, but we won't have that shared experience of "oh, you also just barely got out of that dungeon alive?!"
Ok I see what you mean. You think the reputation of the game will suffer. Which is of course subjective.
Even then that requires there to be an "easy" mode. With the obvious suggestion that "Save Anywhere" makes it easier. It doesn't, the difficulty of the game does not change. Unless you "cheat", ie you save scum to ensure you get the best result possible.

And once again, the ideal solution to your issue of knowing who potentially save scums, and who doesn't, is to simply have an ironman mode(Or flip it on its head, have a "savescum" mode). With an achievement that points out how you played the game.

It is a game however, so if you are not as interested in talking to me about my experiences simply because I potentially save scummed, then maybe you are taking it a tad too seriously.
Also a difficult part of the game, will be difficult whether you save scum or not. All that saving and reloading still takes time, and will still need to happen if the task is hard.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
Ok, so how did you guage if someone was cheating or not back in the day?
Like I said, there will always be cheaters. I assume that they are the minority and not any real factor. And, frankly, if they cheated, then they are unlikely to share the same feelings of peril as someone who played the game without cheating. That kind of thing can come out in conversation. It's really a non-issue to me. (And, if they tell me that they cheated in some original way that wasn't published or readily available, I'll probably end up having respect for them anyway, because of their resourcefulness. Likewise for people who author cracks, rather than those who merely use them.)
Riiiiight. So savescumming can't come out in conversation?

_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
You are arguing for something that is extremely niche and doesn't have a real standard outside of systems like steam achievements etc. You could never have known if someone was cheating or not.

And of course it matters, it's a single player game it will only affect the person playing. If you get upset that someone else cheated, that is your issue. Now in a multiplayer game, of course it is important, as anything that gives one person an advantage over the other outside of actual gameplay is bad.
Where is all this stuff about cheating coming from? My argument, as presented thus far, doesn't have to do with cheating or cheaters.
Save scumming, is essentially cheating. If the Gameplay requires a random chance, and you use the save system to remove the randomness, then that is cheating.
Ultimately though who cares because it is a single player game.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 7:55 pm
So because you 2 are niche enough to want to compare, I have to suffer?
Far more than 2 people, of course. And, how, exactly, do you suffer if not every game caters to you?
And far more than just I want the game to be able to save regularly.
Simply pointing out that those particular arguments are irrelevent because they boil down to personal preference. A preference that can be easily suited to both players by simply having a "Ironman" or "Savescum" switch. With some achievements for proof.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1876
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 9th, 2018, 6:34 pm

It's not cheating if it's not breaking a rule. If a game allows the player to do something, it's not objectively cheating. It's only cheating by subjective standards someone sets themselves. If you were to run a contest with rules tighter than the base game, then a player could "cheat" in the context of that contest even though they're taking advantage of what the game offers.

Save scumming isn't cheating. It's optimizing the play mechanic because the developer allows it and call it cheating themselves. But it could be "cheating" if you project your own play standards onto someone else who doesn't play by your standards. Or it could be cheating if you use what the developer calls "cheat codes". But making use of the save mechanic as much as the game allows? Not cheating.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1191
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20scumming
I used savescumming to get to the Amulet of Yendor just to prove to myself that it was possible. Someday I'll beat it for real.
(emphasis added)
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Ok I see what you mean. You think the reputation of the game will suffer. Which is of course subjective. \
The reputation of the game will be less among those who care whether it allows save scumming.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Even then that requires there to be an "easy" mode. With the obvious suggestion that "Save Anywhere" makes it easier.
I've been referring to unlimited save/restore as an easy mode because it allows for fatal consequences to be avoided, making the game easier than it otherwise would be. And, yes, I do mean easier because the player has to pay more attention and think more carefully when fatal consequences are involved.

I would be careful with the term "save anywhere" because it is not necessarily synonymous with "unlimited save/restore". I'm okay with save anywhere, anytime as long there is only ever one save slot to save to (and hence only one save slot to restore from). I've argued for that since I first joined this particular incarnation of the interminable save game debate.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
It doesn't, the difficulty of the game does not change. Unless you "cheat", ie you save scum to ensure you get the best result possible.
As thebruce mentions, save scumming via unlimited save/restore is not necessarily cheating, because you are operating within the expected parameters of the game. Things that I would actually consider cheating would be editing your character file to boost stats or using a memory editor to twiddle bits of a live game to avoid certain challenges while getting credit for overcoming them.

Ever wonder why it is called "scumming" rather than something less pejorative-sounding, like "decision tree pruning", "possible outcome exploration", or "victory path optimization"? :lol:
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
And once again, the ideal solution to your issue of knowing who potentially save scums, and who doesn't, is to simply have an ironman mode
Not sure how this is ideal. Ideal would be to not allow save scumming, because then the doubt never occurs when people socialize about the game.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
It is a game however, so if you are not as interested in talking to me about my experiences simply because I potentially save scummed, then maybe you are taking it a tad too seriously.
As I said earlier, we can probably find some commonality in discussing things like scenes and whatnot, as a couple of video tourists might. But, the real respect and real bond comes from knowing that the other person has passed through similar ordeals and also had to face a real prospect of loss.
You and the other person beat it for real - to borrow from the opening quote I shared.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Far more than 2 people, of course. And, how, exactly, do you suffer if not every game caters to you?
And far more than just I want the game to be able to save regularly.
I have no problem with saving regularly, provided it is only to a single available save slot.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Simply pointing out that those particular arguments are irrelevent because they boil down to personal preference.
Personal preference is key here. Why should your personal preference trump mine every time a new game is being made? Can't you be content to have many games which cater to your taste, while letting even a few cater to those who have different tastes? Can't you just walk away from a game which doesn't provided unlimited save/restore and say "oh well, that one's not for me - I hope others will enjoy it"?
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
A preference that can be easily suited to both players by simply having a "Ironman" or "Savescum" switch. With some achievements for proof.
Nope. My preference is for a game that doesn't allow save scumming. That preference is mutually exclusive with your preference for having a game which does (either by default or by option).
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 9th, 2018, 8:09 pm

thebruce wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 6:34 pm
It's not cheating if it's not breaking a rule. If a game allows the player to do something, it's not objectively cheating. It's only cheating by subjective standards someone sets themselves. If you were to run a contest with rules tighter than the base game, then a player could "cheat" in the context of that contest even though they're taking advantage of what the game offers.

Save scumming isn't cheating. It's optimizing the play mechanic because the developer allows it and call it cheating themselves. But it could be "cheating" if you project your own play standards onto someone else who doesn't play by your standards. Or it could be cheating if you use what the developer calls "cheat codes". But making use of the save mechanic as much as the game allows? Not cheating.
Of course it is cheating. If you use the save mechanic to avoid a gameplay mechanic, then you are cheating. It is literally a "do-over".
Now as its a single player game, who cares. If you want to use the save mechanic to get constant do-overs whenever something doesn't go your way, then go ahead. But don't say it isn't cheating, because it is.
If I save the game at a specific point because I want to come back and play a different stream later, then I am still cheating. There is no way that I would have had the exact same results in a different playthrough. BUT we overlook that cheat, because of ease of use.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm

_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20scumming
I used savescumming to get to the Amulet of Yendor just to prove to myself that it was possible. Someday I'll beat it for real.
(emphasis added)
And?
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Ok I see what you mean. You think the reputation of the game will suffer. Which is of course subjective. \
The reputation of the game will be less among those who care whether it allows save scumming.
Subjectively
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Even then that requires there to be an "easy" mode. With the obvious suggestion that "Save Anywhere" makes it easier.
I've been referring to unlimited save/restore as an easy mode because it allows for fatal consequences to be avoided, making the game easier than it otherwise would be. And, yes, I do mean easier because the player has to pay more attention and think more carefully when fatal consequences are involved.

I would be careful with the term "save anywhere" because it is not necessarily synonymous with "unlimited save/restore". I'm okay with save anywhere, anytime as long there is only ever one save slot to save to (and hence only one save slot to restore from). I've argued for that since I first joined this particular incarnation of the interminable save game debate.
Hey just because you can't control yourself and misuse the Save system to cheat, doesn't mean that I will.

And I have simply argued that you can suit both your people and my people by simply having the option.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
It doesn't, the difficulty of the game does not change. Unless you "cheat", ie you save scum to ensure you get the best result possible.
As thebruce mentions, save scumming via unlimited save/restore is not necessarily cheating, because you are operating within the expected parameters of the game. Things that I would actually consider cheating would be editing your character file to boost stats or using a memory editor to twiddle bits of a live game to avoid certain challenges while getting credit for overcoming them.

Ever wonder why it is called "scumming" rather than something less pejorative-sounding, like "decision tree pruning", "possible outcome exploration", or "victory path optimization"? :lol:
Because it's cheating..... !?!?!
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
And once again, the ideal solution to your issue of knowing who potentially save scums, and who doesn't, is to simply have an ironman mode
Not sure how this is ideal. Ideal would be to not allow save scumming, because then the doubt never occurs when people socialize about the game.
Nice Selective quoting there.
My actual comment wrote:And once again, the ideal solution to your issue of knowing who potentially save scums, and who doesn't, is to simply have an ironman mode(Or flip it on its head, have a "savescum" mode). With an achievement that points out how you played the game.
Note that little bit on "achievements".
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
It is a game however, so if you are not as interested in talking to me about my experiences simply because I potentially save scummed, then maybe you are taking it a tad too seriously.
As I said earlier, we can probably find some commonality in discussing things like scenes and whatnot, as a couple of video tourists might. But, the real respect and real bond comes from knowing that the other person has passed through similar ordeals and also had to face a real prospect of loss.
You and the other person beat it for real - to borrow from the opening quote I shared.
:lol:
Yeah Nah.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
And far more than just I want the game to be able to save regularly.
I have no problem with saving regularly, provided it is only to a single available save slot.
See that circular bit I was talking about earlier because neither side will budge... There you go. :roll:
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Simply pointing out that those particular arguments are irrelevent because they boil down to personal preference.
Personal preference is key here. Why should your personal preference trump mine every time a new game is being made? Can't you be content to have many games which cater to your taste, while letting even a few cater to those who have different tastes? Can't you just walk away from a game which doesn't provided unlimited save/restore and say "oh well, that one's not for me - I hope others will enjoy it"?
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
A preference that can be easily suited to both players by simply having a "Ironman" or "Savescum" switch. With some achievements for proof.
Nope. My preference is for a game that doesn't allow save scumming. That preference is mutually exclusive with your preference for having a game which does (either by default or by option).
And yet, its not. Because if you include the Achievements argument, then you get to have your little "I beat it for reals" conversations with your niche group, and I get to play the game how I want. Except that apparently any sort of compromise is the devil for you.

As I said earlier, Pointless argument because neither side will compromise. Oh except that wait, I did. I said "Have both with an achievement for Ironman or Savescumming", and you just said "No if it's not my way then no one else should ever be able to enjoy the game EVER".
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1876
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 9th, 2018, 9:49 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:09 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 6:34 pm
It's not cheating if it's not breaking a rule. If a game allows the player to do something, it's not objectively cheating. It's only cheating by subjective standards someone sets themselves. If you were to run a contest with rules tighter than the base game, then a player could "cheat" in the context of that contest even though they're taking advantage of what the game offers.

Save scumming isn't cheating. It's optimizing the play mechanic because the developer allows it and call it cheating themselves. But it could be "cheating" if you project your own play standards onto someone else who doesn't play by your standards. Or it could be cheating if you use what the developer calls "cheat codes". But making use of the save mechanic as much as the game allows? Not cheating.
Of course it is cheating. If you use the save mechanic to avoid a gameplay mechanic, then you are cheating. It is literally a "do-over".
Now as its a single player game, who cares. If you want to use the save mechanic to get constant do-overs whenever something doesn't go your way, then go ahead. But don't say it isn't cheating, because it is.
If I save the game at a specific point because I want to come back and play a different stream later, then I am still cheating. There is no way that I would have had the exact same results in a different playthrough. BUT we overlook that cheat, because of ease of use.
You have a very different concept of cheating. One that people can use to say that "I did it this way, and that's the proper way. You did something differently, so you cheated." Believe it. Your argument is that flexible. Cheating is by definition rule-breaking, or intentional deception. Save anywhere, or save scumming, a mechanic provided by the game (and intended to be used to its capability, otherwise it would be more limited), is not cheating. Cheating would be altering your save file to bump your next game load to a different location, especially if you couldn't get there by in-game means. Cheating would be telling someone "I never save scummed in my playthrough" when you did, in order to [falsely] compare yourself equally by their play standard.
Using the provided game mechanic, especially with no comparative standard, is not cheating.
A child calls someone doing anything they feel is unfair a cheater.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5857
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm

thebruce wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 9:49 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:09 pm
Of course it is cheating. If you use the save mechanic to avoid a gameplay mechanic, then you are cheating. It is literally a "do-over".
Now as its a single player game, who cares. If you want to use the save mechanic to get constant do-overs whenever something doesn't go your way, then go ahead. But don't say it isn't cheating, because it is.
If I save the game at a specific point because I want to come back and play a different stream later, then I am still cheating. There is no way that I would have had the exact same results in a different playthrough. BUT we overlook that cheat, because of ease of use.
You have a very different concept of cheating. One that people can use to say that "I did it this way, and that's the proper way. You did something differently, so you cheated." Believe it. Your argument is that flexible. Cheating is by definition rule-breaking, or intentional deception. Save anywhere, or save scumming, a mechanic provided by the game (and intended to be used to its capability, otherwise it would be more limited), is not cheating. Cheating would be altering your save file to bump your next game load to a different location, especially if you couldn't get there by in-game means. Cheating would be telling someone "I never save scummed in my playthrough" when you did, in order to [falsely] compare yourself equally by their play standard.
Using the provided game mechanic, especially with no comparative standard, is not cheating.
A child calls someone doing anything they feel is unfair a cheater.
Nah. Personally I wouldn't have started calling it cheating until I got into this stupid argument around saving. If you want to see the evolution of my arguments feel free to go back and see the numerous threads in WL2, then in TTON, etc etc etc....

I've firmed up my arguments simply because I had to.

Nowadays the save mechanic is designed in 2 ways. As an integral part of the gameplay. You have lives and if you die you come back at a certain point. Or as an item or cost that affects the gameplay. Eg paying money in an inn to "rest" that saves. Finding a glowing beacon that when touched saves, etc etc.

Or as a method of recording the game completely seperate from the actual gameplay functionality. All it is doing is creating a save of the moment in time, that you can then use as you will.
Now it may be that the game software is flakey, or you have a flakey PC or power or whatever and as a result you have failures left right and centre. So in those cases the Save is there to allow you to recover from an unintended failure.

You mentioned it yourself. "Cheating would be telling someone "I never save scummed in my playthrough" when you did, in order to [falsely] compare yourself equally by their play standard."

So because someone isn't comparing, then they aren't cheating?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think people are always wrong in using it to cheat. Personally I don't have the time or inclination to go back and redo a game that takes many hours simply because I had a party wipe because I fucked up in a key battle.
In Kenshi for example, my party of 15 odd fighters were waiting outside of a Shek citadel. I looked away briefly and forgot to pause the game. During that time the Shek decide to hate me for reasons unknown(they are a violent race), so when I looked back I was in a fight where I was ridiculously outnumbered and outskilled. Why, because I looked away. Yeah Nah, I am not going to lose many many hours to something stupid, so I reloaded. For all intents and purposes, I cheated. Does that matter. Nope. I am still playing the game and enjoying it immensely. But by the same argument I could have reloaded when one of my new recruits was killed during another big brawl. Or when one of my old guard lost an arm, or when I didn't get back to pay tribute at my base in time, and the ran in and smashed me, and I had to scrabble to get my people out before they were all killed (Which included sneaking up to the couple of guys who had been injured and carrying them away before the raiders (shek again) noticed or with a character fast enough to run away). That was another one I was tempted to reload because it was a silly mistake caused by RTwP gameplay, but it actually worked out ok in the end, so I didn't bother(Tho one of my farmers lost an arm).
But it is still cheating. You are using a function outside of gameplay to affect gameplay. It's essentially an exploit.
Saving so that you can choose a different path later. It's still ultimately cheating, but we forgive it, because really all we are doing is not wasting our lives playing the same bits over again.

I even get the Ironman thing. There is cred in being able to go through it and win without needing to "Cheat" or "Reload". Heck there is even a sense of achievement for it. I loved playing FTL. That is still one of my favourite time wasters. But it is a short game and it is meant to be replayed over and over again, so the gameplay is designed to be different each play through.
But not everyone wants to do that, and not every game lends itself to it. Some of us just want to have fun playing a game. Why should I be punished for not wanting to be a hardcore Leet gamer, when by simply adding an option and having an achievement, the Leet gamer and I can both be accomodated.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Spectralshade
Scholar
Posts: 219
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 8:58 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Spectralshade » October 10th, 2018, 3:57 am

Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Save scumming, is essentially cheating. If the Gameplay requires a random chance, and you use the save system to remove the randomness, then that is cheating.
Ultimately though who cares because it is a single player game.
just going to point out that lots of games have been built around the free usage of save reloads, so the game can become essentially unplayable without savescumming. In this regard savescumming is no different from a checkpoint system with checkpoints right before each meaningfull combat.

Let's agree that reloading a save (regardless of wether it is from freesave or from a checkpoint) is not cheating.

User avatar
Themadcow
Explorer
Posts: 332
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 1:46 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Themadcow » October 10th, 2018, 6:32 am

Nah, it's not cheating - probably 'cheesing' is a better term. I'll confess that I did abuse the hell out of this in the BT remasters in terms of getting decent HP/SP from level-up's outside the review board. Did I do that in the original game? Well, sometimes - but the hassle of reloading (on tape LOL) from the AG was a big disincentive, so more often than not I settled for "decent" rather than "great".

Now the BT1 remaster has all kind of features to make it easier, but even I was surprised that I could steamroller through everything but the final dungeon in a little over 11 hours. The game simply isn't "balanced" around it being that easy to save and reload.
~~~ CPC's - Getting in the way of fun gameplay since 1998 ~~~

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests