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

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am

Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm
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?
No, because they are competing with (comparing to) someone else, and lying about how they achieved a goal.
If you said you finished the game without saving anywhere and asked if I did as well, then I said I sure did (but I did save anywhere) I cheated by your standards. If I told the truth, that I did save anywhere, then I didn't achieve the goal, but at least I was honest. And you could say "Hey, completing it even though you saved anywhere is a noble feat, but you didn't accomplish the goal in question."

But I didn't cheat the game by using a feature the game provides as much as it allows me to. It's petty arguments that start because someone insists on claiming it's cheating - because that's their standard, not the game's. According to the game, it's not cheating. As I said in that same comment, were I to edit the save file in order to boost my stats or move me somewhere unnaturally (not via game mechanics), that would be cheating the game.
Yeah Nah, I am not going to lose many many hours to something stupid, so I reloaded. For all intents and purposes, I cheated. ... But it is still cheating.
Nope, you didn't cheat. Not unless you set that standard for yourself. If you set out to limit yourself and not use the save feature to its fullest, then if you do, you're only cheating yourself - not the game.
It's essentially an exploit.
Ah, an exploit is a different flavour than cheating. An exploit is making use of a game feature (the game allows you to do something) to get around a difficulty, where that was not the intention of the design. So, you're making the argument that taking advantage of save anywhere is an exploit, that's a different argument that I think as more weight. The question then becomes did the developers intend for your use of the save system to be a valid gameplay tactic? If so, then nope, not an exploit or a cheat.

What about cheat codes? Well first, it's not an exploit because it's provided to do something to the game and does exactly what it's intended to do - break game mechanics in favour of the player. But, being labeled a cheat means the developers are providing it explicitly to get around the intended mechanics, so they're still a cheat. Though you might find people that hold contests even making use of some cheat codes. Heck in Halo, people compete for speedruns with subjective rules about which skulls can be active for a specific speedrun. That's the speedrun standard, that's the community rule. And, it's a legitimate game mechanic that isn't even labeled a cheat (but they get around it with providing achievements that recognize your use - or non-use - of them in your gameplay), but if you don't follow those subjective rules for the unofficial community-judged speedruns, then you're "cheating" on the speedruns.

Cheating is about breaking rules; or more broadly, being deceitful in order to find success.
Don't cheat yourself. Don't cheat other people. And the only way you can cheat a game is by breaking the game's rules (about the closest you can get to 'deceiving' software).
I even get the Ironman thing. There is cred in being able to go through it and win without needing to "Cheat" or "Reload".
If the "ironman thing" (in a game that doesn't provide the mode but is a community-set standard) is where using the save feature in some way is against the "rules", then yes you can cheat on the ironman goal. But if the option is there, provided by the game, to save in an ironman mode, it's not cheating the game to use it.
Heck there is even a sense of achievement for it.
Let's say the game actually gives you an achievement for it. If the game doesn't negate the reward if you used the save, then you still won the reward according to the game. That can be greatly confusing because now you have two people with the "ironman" reward, where only one didn't use save anywhere. So who's is legitimate? The one who did it clean of saves will insist they did it legitimately; but so will the one who says the game proves it.
Who's right? It's a subjective rule the game did not enforce in that case. So once again, making optimal use of a save mechanic is not cheating the game.

Option 2: The game could describe the achievement as only being earnable without using the save feature, even if it's available. Use it once, forfeit the reward. The game sets the standard. Cheating would be using the save, but somehow tricking the game into thinking you didn't so that you could get the reward (maybe directly editing game files).

Option 3: The game removes the save mechanic in Ironman mode. Now there's no question - you can't save anywhere. Anyone who gets the reward has absolutely earned it without the save anywhere mechanic. Unless they (as usual) tricked the game into rewarding it falsely somehow.

Get the theme here?

But shake all that off. I'm not one to care about the competing nature of game saves and options. My point in this strand of the thread was purely about what constitutes "cheating" when it comes to game save mechanic.

---
Now the other aspect of the save mechanic with a different point:
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.
Absolutely. I'm not against having options. BUT, my whole point is that if those options cause the developers to cater the game design and mechanics to certain state or ability then even having the option has indeed affected the single player experience. Case in point, described earlier - grid-locking affecting the game, designed having no grid, so now giving the player the option provides a pointless sub-par experience (which has yet to be determined, but all signs are pointing there so far). As opposed to having designed the game to be balanced whether the option is enabled or not.

Once again, the question is whether the option state affects static gameplay elements. And the argument is that the save mechanic - save anywhere vs an ironman save mode - prompts such a drastic alteration of core gameplay strategies that it can't be just a matter of turning it on or off. I believe the save mechanic option would need to alter other core gameplay features (which were designed with one save mechanic in mind) in order to be an effective (desireable) option.

Themadcow wrote:Nah, it's not cheating - probably 'cheesing' is a better term.
That I can grok :lol:
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 10th, 2018, 6:33 pm

Woolfe wrote:
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?
And I provided you with a third-party definition of save scumming to help frame what it is we're talking about...? And which I also later referenced...?
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
_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
Huh?
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
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.
What are you talking about?

Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
And I have simply argued that you can suit both your people and my people by simply having the option.
I've been arguing from personal philosophy - not trying to represent any group of people, although I have met others who share my preference.
What I don't think you're understanding, though, is that having the option to save scum goes against my preference which is to not have the option to save scum. By providing such an option, you are not satisfying "my people".
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 7:49 pm
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..... !?!?!
That's highly debatable, as already mentioned.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
Note that little bit on "achievements".
Was previously addressed.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 8:44 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 5:24 pm
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.
If the "compromise" allows save scumming, then it is inherently against my position. What you're saying is that people should be able to attend a good university and try to think and work their way to a diploma or, optionally, just buy one without putting in any effort.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 10th, 2018, 10:00 pm

Spectralshade wrote:
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.
What games?

Edit:
Also apologies, I am breaking a forum rule by having 3 different posts. Too painful trying to keep them all seperate in a single post.
Last edited by Woolfe on October 11th, 2018, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm

Themadcow wrote:
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.
Don't tell Noblesse, he won't ever want to talk to you again :P :P

But did they ever design the game in such a way that you couldn't win without the "cheesing"?
So if you hadn't of loaded/Reloaded constantly to get the best rolls, would you have completed it? I know the original had a lot of grind, so wouldn't you have just grinded to get more levels? So you shortcut a gameplay mechanism. That's like peaking under a card in a game of solitaire.

Put it this way. If you were playing the game in a competitive fashion, and you had 3 impartial judges watching your game. Would they consider leveling up by saving and reloading to be "cheating"? What about the every day person.

If they saw 2 people playing a game, and one was constantly saving/reloading would it be cheating?

:lol: the funny thing is I am arguing Noblesse's point here.

My point with him of course is that not every game needs to be a comptetively judged ironman run. :lol:

It is cheating, but as you point out, a lot of people(including me) consider it to be "less than" cheating, simply because it makes it a little bit easier. But if you get all technical about it, it is cheating. They just don't want to call it that, cause "cheating" is a dirty word. :lol:
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 11th, 2018, 12:00 am

thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm
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?
No, because they are competing with (comparing to) someone else, and lying about how they achieved a goal.
If you said you finished the game without saving anywhere and asked if I did as well, then I said I sure did (but I did save anywhere) I cheated by your standards. If I told the truth, that I did save anywhere, then I didn't achieve the goal, but at least I was honest. And you could say "Hey, completing it even though you saved anywhere is a noble feat, but you didn't accomplish the goal in question."
It's still cheating, it's just cheating yourself, instead of someone else.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm
But I didn't cheat the game by using a feature the game provides as much as it allows me to. It's petty arguments that start because someone insists on claiming it's cheating - because that's their standard, not the game's. According to the game, it's not cheating. As I said in that same comment, were I to edit the save file in order to boost my stats or move me somewhere unnaturally (not via game mechanics), that would be cheating the game.
Did you bypass a gameplay element by Saving and Reloading? If you did, then you are cheating. If the save system is not explicity part of the gameplay, (resting at an inn, restarting the level when you die etc) then it is a funtion outside of gameplay. It's liek importing characters from a previous game. That's not a gameplay function. It just shortcuts the need to create new characters.
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm
Yeah Nah, I am not going to lose many many hours to something stupid, so I reloaded. For all intents and purposes, I cheated. ... But it is still cheating.
Nope, you didn't cheat. Not unless you set that standard for yourself. If you set out to limit yourself and not use the save feature to its fullest, then if you do, you're only cheating yourself - not the game.
Of course you are cheating yourself. It's a single player game, who else are you going to cheat? It's still cheating. :lol:
I cheat in games sometimes. I save and reload before going into a big fight. Why not. I don't have the time to go back and redo a 10 hour game all because I didn't quite develop my group in the best way possible. Cheating is only dirty if you are playing against someone. Either directly in multiplayer or indirectly by comparing scores.
I have offered solutions to that. Achievements etc. But apparently that is not good enough for some. We must all be uber hard core or we can't play the game. :P :P
Yeah nah, getting too old for that nowadays. If I want to waste my time, I'll play CIV or Stellaris. (And I will probably save scum occasionally in them)
Woolfe wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 11:03 pm
It's essentially an exploit.
Ah, an exploit is a different flavour than cheating. An exploit is making use of a game feature (the game allows you to do something) to get around a difficulty, where that was not the intention of the design. So, you're making the argument that taking advantage of save anywhere is an exploit, that's a different argument that I think as more weight. The question then becomes did the developers intend for your use of the save system to be a valid gameplay tactic? If so, then nope, not an exploit or a cheat.
Of course an exploit is a cheat. Game development is complex, sometimes you leave holes that can be exploited. Does that mean the exploit was meant to be there? :lol:
WL1 you could create a character, give their gear to another and then delete them and create another. Then go and sell the extra gear and get more money/ammo than I should have started with. That's an exploit. It's cheating.
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
What about cheat codes? Well first, it's not an exploit because it's provided to do something to the game and does exactly what it's intended to do - break game mechanics in favour of the player. But, being labeled a cheat means the developers are providing it explicitly to get around the intended mechanics, so they're still a cheat. Though you might find people that hold contests even making use of some cheat codes. Heck in Halo, people compete for speedruns with subjective rules about which skulls can be active for a specific speedrun. That's the speedrun standard, that's the community rule. And, it's a legitimate game mechanic that isn't even labeled a cheat (but they get around it with providing achievements that recognize your use - or non-use - of them in your gameplay), but if you don't follow those subjective rules for the unofficial community-judged speedruns, then you're "cheating" on the speedruns.
Cheat codes are labeled cheat codes, cause that is ALL THEY DO. Saving actually has a purpose other than cheating. You can use the save funtion without cheating. Or you can use it to cheat. It is still a function outside of the gameplay. Just like a cheat code in fact :-)
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Cheating is about breaking rules; or more broadly, being deceitful in order to find success.
Don't cheat yourself. Don't cheat other people. And the only way you can cheat a game is by breaking the game's rules (about the closest you can get to 'deceiving' software).
Why can't you cheat yourself? I cheat myself all the time, I have a choccy biscuit or three when I am supposed to be eating properly, I stop pushing when I know I could run harder in the parkrun I do, I stay up way too late at night playing games instead of going to bed and getting the rest i need... etc etc etc

Some cheats are not as bad as others, and we accept them in our lives. Why are you so concerned if I call it cheating?
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
I even get the Ironman thing. There is cred in being able to go through it and win without needing to "Cheat" or "Reload".
If the "ironman thing" (in a game that doesn't provide the mode but is a community-set standard) is where using the save feature in some way is against the "rules", then yes you can cheat on the ironman goal. But if the option is there, provided by the game, to save in an ironman mode, it's not cheating the game to use it.
What? I think I missed the point on that one... sorry :mrgreen:
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Heck there is even a sense of achievement for it.
Let's say the game actually gives you an achievement for it. If the game doesn't negate the reward if you used the save, then you still won the reward according to the game. That can be greatly confusing because now you have two people with the "ironman" reward, where only one didn't use save anywhere. So who's is legitimate? The one who did it clean of saves will insist they did it legitimately; but so will the one who says the game proves it.
Who's right? It's a subjective rule the game did not enforce in that case. So once again, making optimal use of a save mechanic is not cheating the game.

Option 2: The game could describe the achievement as only being earnable without using the save feature, even if it's available. Use it once, forfeit the reward. The game sets the standard. Cheating would be using the save, but somehow tricking the game into thinking you didn't so that you could get the reward (maybe directly editing game files).

Option 3: The game removes the save mechanic in Ironman mode. Now there's no question - you can't save anywhere. Anyone who gets the reward has absolutely earned it without the save anywhere mechanic. Unless they (as usual) tricked the game into rewarding it falsely somehow.

Get the theme here?
It's a single player game. If you want to compare it to everyone else, that is your choice. Personally I am playing for myself.
Your first option makes no sense, why does it matter if they have both the "Ironman" and the "Savescum" achievement? They have the achievement, they have shown they can do it in the Ironman mode as defined by the achievement.
If you only ever want to play ironman and consider anyone who doesn't so lesser that you won't even engage with them, then I'm sorry but you have issues greater than the save functionality.

Option 2... Um that's generally how Ironman works. Well actually Ironman usually locks it down so you can't do the extra saves. Kinda the point of the ironman mode. Soooooo not sure what is different about this and option 1. Unless you are suggesting that they don't have an ironman mode at all, and just have an achievement if you don't reload. Well I guess you could do that. I imagine it would be harder to program, but whatevs. Pretty much functionally identical to the first option, except that in the first you have to resist the temptation, whereas in the second you don't get a choice. In a way that might be considered even more hardcore :lol: :lol:

Option 3. Sure, but let me know in advance so I can consider getting off that train. I have no interest in playing Ironman in a game that eats hours of my life.

This is 100% subjective. It's a single player game. Any comparison of Games is voluntary. I can be the most hardcore player ever. But if I choose not to tell anyone, no one will ever know. No sheep stations are being bet on you being the hardest or not.

This is not a new issue. Please see the various arcade champion type competitions, and the level of ensuring all sides are playing the same game that goes on there.
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
But shake all that off. I'm not one to care about the competing nature of game saves and options. My point in this strand of the thread was purely about what constitutes "cheating" when it comes to game save mechanic.
Shaken :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
---
Now the other aspect of the save mechanic with a different point:
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.
Absolutely. I'm not against having options. BUT, my whole point is that if those options cause the developers to cater the game design and mechanics to certain state or ability then even having the option has indeed affected the single player experience. Case in point, described earlier - grid-locking affecting the game, designed having no grid, so now giving the player the option provides a pointless sub-par experience (which has yet to be determined, but all signs are pointing there so far). As opposed to having designed the game to be balanced whether the option is enabled or not.
Um.. you clearly missed my point. I don't want the Devs to cater to the save mechanic. Build the game at the difficulty level you want, and then add the save mechanic on top. Ignore whether or not people can use it to make it easier/harder. Let the players choose their honesty. Then if they want to cheat a little, they can, if they want to bypass every random chance they can. Drop some achievements on it to show how hard or not they are, and then stop worrying about it.
Once the users have a baseline, they can make up their own rules on how to ensure Joe bloggs "really played it right" versus Tom Bones playing it how he wants.
Easy Peasy. Everyone is happy except for the extremes.
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Once again, the question is whether the option state affects static gameplay elements. And the argument is that the save mechanic - save anywhere vs an ironman save mode - prompts such a drastic alteration of core gameplay strategies that it can't be just a matter of turning it on or off. I believe the save mechanic option would need to alter other core gameplay features (which were designed with one save mechanic in mind) in order to be an effective (desireable) option.
Nope the question is whether you are cheating or not.
Where a game has an internal save mechanism (Inn Resting or glowy thing in a corner), it has some internal cost to using it. That cost may be as simple as going back to a location in the game and saving again, or it might be a more specific cost, like loss of experience or something. You can't really cheat there, as there is a cost to saving. So even if you do go nuts and save 10 times in 10 minutes, you will be worse off (in theory) than the other guy who saved once.

But Quicksave, and Save in general is not a gameplay mechanic. It is outside the game, it is a convenience thing. If you use that convenience to get around gameplay mechanics, then you are cheating. But that's ok, it will only ever be an issue if the savescum police come knocking on your door.
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Themadcow wrote:Nah, it's not cheating - probably 'cheesing' is a better term.
That I can grok :lol:
It's still cheating. :lol:
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

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

Re: Save game system...

Post by Themadcow » October 11th, 2018, 1:00 am

This save game thread is giving me flashbacks to 2016. We didn't reach a conclusion then either.
~~~ CPC's - Getting in the way of fun gameplay since 1998 ~~~

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

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 11th, 2018, 6:47 am

Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
So if you hadn't of loaded/Reloaded constantly to get the best rolls, would you have completed it?
By your definition, rerolling until you max out your available stats is cheating. It might not be labeled "save and reload" but the effect is the same. You don't like what the game gave you, so you are using a provided mechanic to "try again" untli you're satisfied. Is that cheating? I say clearly not. If you say it's not, then neither is saving and reloading. For ANY reason. If you say it is, then you're once again projecting your subjective standard of a "proper" playthrough where anything that doesn't abide by your standard (not reloading a save for reasons you have deemed "cheating" since the game doesn't care, or rerolling characters to optimize stats) is, to you, cheawting.
I know the original had a lot of grind, so wouldn't you have just grinded to get more levels? So you shortcut a gameplay mechanism.
Since I'm referring to an objective standard, not an individual's opinion, then yes if you shortcut a game mechanic using a means that is not provided or intended by the game, then you're cheating the game. Whether that's okay with you is whether that strategy breaks your personal gaming ethic - whether you're cheating yourself. I don't care if you think you're cheating yourself or not. I do care when you project your standards on other people, telling them they're "cheating" when the game doesn't think so and they don't think so. And by "game doesn't think so" I mean using functions the game provides for the very reason they're provided.
If [judges] saw 2 people playing a game, and one was constantly saving/reloading would it be cheating?
Only if it was against their rules. It's not against the game's rules. If judges are judging two players' games, then there will be rules. One of them will be "restoring from saves is allowed" or "restoring from saves not allowed". And if they don't make that clear, you'd better believe there will be debates and complaints and rule clarifications the first time someone does it and someone else complains.
Objective standards is the point I'm making. What you consider cheating is not necessarily what someone else considers cheating, especially if it's a mechanic that's explicitly provided by the game itself with no defining parameters (it doesn't care "why" you save and restore)
Themadcow wrote:This save game thread is giving me flashbacks to 2016. We didn't reach a conclusion then either.
Internet forum life :P
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

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

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am

Woolfe wrote:
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
No, because they are competing with (comparing to) someone else, and lying about how they achieved a goal.
If you said you finished the game without saving anywhere and asked if I did as well, then I said I sure did (but I did save anywhere) I cheated by your standards. If I told the truth, that I did save anywhere, then I didn't achieve the goal, but at least I was honest. And you could say "Hey, completing it even though you saved anywhere is a noble feat, but you didn't accomplish the goal in question."
It's still cheating, it's just cheating yourself, instead of someone else.
If the person doesn't think they're cheating themself, because they don't think it's cheating, because the game lets you do it without laying any guilt, then the person won't care one iota if you think they're cheating. Who are you to tell them they're cheating themselves? You might stand a better chance by convincing them they're missing out on a better experience in the end by playing to your standards (which are not the game's). But now you're back to comparing gameplays, which is irrelevant in single player games from an objective standpoint. (people do it by choice)
Woolfe wrote:Did you bypass a gameplay element by Saving and Reloading?
Nope, you used a game mechanism in the way it was intended. To save a game, and reload a game. Doesn't matter why. To YOU someone who does might be missing out. To someone else they're not. The game doesn't care. It gives you the option to, and doesn't label it as anything but playing the game. It's not objectively cheating. It's cheating to you[/]. That's all. Because you're comparing that person's play style with yours.

Woolfe wrote:If you did, then you are cheating. If the save system is not explicity part of the gameplay, (resting at an inn, restarting the level when you die etc) then it is a funtion outside of gameplay. It's liek importing characters from a previous game. That's not a gameplay function. It just shortcuts the need to create new characters.

Our difference here is that you believe the save system is separate and distinct from "the game", and thus using it is cheating. Your problem now is where is the line? Why is one person who saves and restores cheating while another person isn't? Or do you think that every single player who ever uses the save/restore feature is cheating? If not, then you have drawn a line between cheating and not cheating which the game doesn't provide. Once again, a subjective standard.

So therein lies our difference - to me, since I'm arguing from an objective perspective, and because I can't label everyone who uses the save system as a cheater (because obviously not every who does is), my "line" is strictly about what the game allows you do and the intent behind those functions. If you subvert those, then you're cheating.

To you, you're fine with claiming a subjective line about what's cheating when it comes to mechanics and features behind the "active gameplaying wall" (for lack of a better term). Anything beyond that wall is not a "game mechanic" and so if use anything beyond that wall to affect gameplay within that wall, then you're cheating.

I can't get behind that view. In my mind that leads to arguments and angst between people who merely disagree on subjective limits. It's very post-modern.


Woolfe wrote:
]Nope, you didn't cheat. Not unless you set that standard for yourself. If you set out to limit yourself and not use the save feature to its fullest, then if you do, you're only cheating yourself - not the game.
Of course you are cheating yourself. It's a single player game, who else are you going to cheat? It's still cheating. :lol:
I don't care if you think you cheated yourself. I care when you tell someone else they cheated when it's not by any shared objective standard. I'm trying to determine that standard. The only objective "judge" between two people is a common law-giver. In this case, the game. If the game doesn't think you're cheating, then as it's relevant everyone who uses the game, you're not cheating. You can cheat by someone else's standards (including your own), but it's arrogant to project your own standards on someone else.
That's a child on the playground calling the other kid a cheater because they did better by strategizing the win without breaking a rule.
That's a person angry because they're used to playing a boardgame by house rules but they were thwarted by someone who knows the game's actual rules.
Objective rules are important.

A single player's game ethic is irrelevant to anyone else; those only involved are the player and the game. So you can cheat yourself by your own standards (I don't care what those are), or you can cheat the game by the game's standards (how the developers define those objective rules does affect me).
Woolfe wrote:I save and reload before going into a big fight. Why not.
Exactly. Why not? It's not cheating the game, but if you do it you could of course feel that you've cheated yourself. No one can tell you you've cheated except yourself.
Cheating the game, as I explained earlier, would be saving before the big fight, then editing the save to max your abilities so you can restore it and kill the boss in 1 round. The game might not tell you you've cheated, but that's because you've now deceived the game to find your success. Part of the definition of cheating I explained earlier.

Woolfe wrote:Cheat codes are labeled cheat codes, cause that is ALL THEY DO. Saving actually has a purpose other than cheating. You can use the save funtion without cheating. Or you can use it to cheat.
Who says? Who are you to tell me that if I save before the big boss, fail, but don't have time to play again, so restore and win the 2nd time, is cheating or not? I don't care about your standard. The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat. But, to you, if I do have time to play, and I save and restore to win the 2nd time right away, that's cheating? The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat.
Woolfe wrote:It is still a function outside of the gameplay. Just like a cheat code in fact :-)
Not a cheat code you can enter while playing the game. Or have you defined somewhere where that "active gameplay wall" exists that I don't know about in any particular game? Seems to me you're moving the goalposts to define certain game features as "in-game" and "out-of-game". What if a "cheat code" isn't even using some console to enter a string, but visiting a few waypoints in the correct order? How do you define a game-provided function that is no longer part of "the gameplay" and constitutes cheating?
No sir, I don't care what you think when you label things cheating - I care what the game thinks, or what the developers have defined as cheating. (ie, breaking game mechanics not using provided functions, or what's explicitly labeled as such, like "cheat codes")
Woolfe wrote:Some cheats are not as bad as others, and we accept them in our lives. Why are you so concerned if I call it cheating?
I'm not. I'm concerned if you call someone else a cheater by your own standards they don't accept.
Woolfe wrote:
thebruce wrote:If the "ironman thing" (in a game that doesn't provide the mode but is a community-set standard) is where using the save feature in some way is against the "rules", then yes you can cheat on the ironman goal. But if the option is there, provided by the game, to save in an ironman mode, it's not cheating the game to use it.
What? I think I missed the point on that one... sorry :mrgreen:
I think it's because you're not grasping the difference between subjective rules and objective rules.
If a game doesn't have an "ironman mode" then there is no ironman mode. There are no objective rules to follow.
A community or contest will lay out their own rules by which all players must abide. Break those shared rules, then you are cheating by those standards.
If a game has an "ironman mode" and allows you to use the save feature, then it's not cheating the game to use it.
If the game wanted to ensure that completing "ironman mode" meant no saves, then either the game would disable saves in ironman mode, or you wouldn't get an achievement awarded in the end if you use saves. The game defines the rules. Not you. When it comes to you being justified in labeling someone else a "cheater" or some action "cheating". Otherwise, it your own ethic and it does not apply.

Woolfe wrote:
Let's say the game actually gives you an achievement for it. If the game doesn't negate the reward if you used the save, then you still won the reward according to the game. That can be greatly confusing because now you have two people with the "ironman" reward, where only one didn't use save anywhere. So who's is legitimate? The one who did it clean of saves will insist they did it legitimately; but so will the one who says the game proves it.
Who's right? It's a subjective rule the game did not enforce in that case. So once again, making optimal use of a save mechanic is not cheating the game.
It's a single player game. If you want to compare it to everyone else, that is your choice. Personally I am playing for myself.
Your first option makes no sense, why does it matter if they have both the "Ironman" and the "Savescum" achievement? They have the achievement, they have shown they can do it in the Ironman mode as defined by the achievement.
What savescum achievement? I only described one, and two people who earned it according to the game; one saved and restored, the other didn't. Will you then say the one who saved "didn't really" earn the achievement because they cheated? Okay, that's your standard. The game doesn't think so. So it's your word against the game's.

You could try to equate using the save mechanic to editing a save file, as both being "outside the gameplay", but wow you'd get a lot of pushback! Mainly from people who believe that using the save system for any reason is not cheating. Which, pretty much, is this whole discussion.

Woolfe wrote:]Option 2... Um that's generally how Ironman works. Well actually Ironman usually locks it down so you can't do the extra saves. Kinda the point of the ironman mode. Soooooo not sure what is different about this and option 1.
It's exactly as I described: Option 1 is ironman mode without restricting saves (why "must" an ironman mode restrict saves? What constitutes Ironman Mode would be entirely up to the developers; the objective rule-maker btw). Option 2 is ironman without restricting saves but recognizing the completion with an achievement the player only receives when not using saves.
Woolfe wrote:Option 3. Sure, but let me know in advance so I can consider getting off that train. I have no interest in playing Ironman in a game that eats hours of my life.
That's..entirely your choice. This is an ironman mode that restricts saving, not the general gameplay. But hey if the gameplay chosen by the developers is not the gameplay you'd prefer, then you don't have to play.

Woolfe wrote:
I'm not against having options. BUT, my whole point is that if those options cause the developers to cater the game design and mechanics to certain state or ability then even having the option has indeed affected the single player experience. Case in point, described earlier - grid-locking affecting the game, designed having no grid, so now giving the player the option provides a pointless sub-par experience (which has yet to be determined, but all signs are pointing there so far). As opposed to having designed the game to be balanced whether the option is enabled or not.
Um.. you clearly missed my point. I don't want the Devs to cater to the save mechanic. Build the game at the difficulty level you want, and then add the save mechanic on top. Ignore whether or not people can use it to make it easier/harder.
Why should they ignore players' opinions?
This whole thread was about what effect making the mechanic would have on core gameplay. The whole point was that the save mechanic they chose wasn't optimal, and that making save mechanics an optional setting would have MUCH more of an effect on core gameplay than otherwise.

I've offered my suggestions on how to implement an optional save mechanic feature, which was more than just toggling when you can save your game, but included some variations to core gameplay that would also need to be affected by the setting.
Let the players choose their honesty.
That's the problem that you're bringing into the discussion. Again, what's "honest", objectively? Not by your standard? If the game lets them do it, why should they feel guilty by your standards as if they're cheating?

Woolfe wrote:
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Once again, the question is whether the option state affects static gameplay elements. And the argument is that the save mechanic - save anywhere vs an ironman save mode - prompts such a drastic alteration of core gameplay strategies that it can't be just a matter of turning it on or off. I believe the save mechanic option would need to alter other core gameplay features (which were designed with one save mechanic in mind) in order to be an effective (desireable) option.
Nope the question is whether you are cheating or not.
...*blinks*

The rest... no more energy to rehash what's already been stated above.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3731
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 11th, 2018, 1:42 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 12:00 am
It's a single player game, who else are you going to cheat?
The developers of course; it's disrespectful of their work.

***And aside from being obvious, I know this from personal experience watching a Let's Play of my own mod, where the guy knew where everything was in advance—though not how it all worked. This (I suspect) is because he had examined all of the Lua scripts in the mod; and loaded the project into the game's editor. :( (Talk about cheating...)

****And for those who would posit that the user paid them and could do what they pleased with it (and that it is not wrong)... consider the person who buys an artist's work to deface it for their own purposes; (even just prints of it). Something they should never do even in private IMO, but certainly not so that the artist would see it or know about it. And this brings to mind the times when a game developer inserted support problems into the Stadium version [read unofficial release] of their games... and they would see players asking them for help with it on their own forums... They would talk to these disrespectful people who were asking them for charitable assistance knowing full well that they don't deserve it.

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
Themadcow wrote:
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.
Don't tell Noblesse, he won't ever want to talk to you again :P :P
I still like Themadcow, even though he disappoints me. ;)
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
My point with him of course is that not every game needs to be a comptetively judged ironman run. :lol:
And my point with Woolfe is that not every game needs to have save scumming available.
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
They just don't want to call it that, cause "cheating" is a dirty word. :lol:
And "scumming" is an uplifting, positive term?
cmibl<enter>

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 11th, 2018, 4:55 pm

Themadcow wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 1:00 am
This save game thread is giving me flashbacks to 2016. We didn't reach a conclusion then either.
Oh c'mon, we're only 7 pages in. If we reach 30, then I'll call it a proper test of tenacity and forum stamina that the other one was.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm

Themadcow wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 1:00 am
This save game thread is giving me flashbacks to 2016. We didn't reach a conclusion then either.
I know right... :lol: and here I was saying I didn't want to get into this argument again :roll: :lol: :lol:
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
Themadcow wrote:
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.
Don't tell Noblesse, he won't ever want to talk to you again :P :P
I still like Themadcow, even though he disappoints me. ;)
:lol:
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
My point with him of course is that not every game needs to be a comptetively judged ironman run. :lol:
And my point with Woolfe is that not every game needs to have save scumming available.
Agreed!

But where do we draw the line. This would be my rough subjective definition.

where gamelay under 2 hours - Ironman only is good.
Greater than 2 hours - Ironman Option is good but some other method save is required.
Greater than 10 hours - Ironman Option is good but definately some method of free saving to allow you to go back to earlier parts of the game if you cock it up or just don't want to have spend hours doing the same thing to take a different path.

Obviously value changes for everyone, but for me, a 10 hour plus game that was only ironman. I wouldn't even bother starting it. I would baulk at a 2-10 hour game that was only Ironman.

I mentioned FTL a couple of times. I absolutely love that game, and part of the joy IS the unforgiving side of it. I have made it right up to the super ship, and discoverd my choice of equipment meant I couldn't actually damage it. But it is key to note, that it is a short game(under 2 hours to complete and win). The game is meant to be completed relatively quickly and then you start again.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
They just don't want to call it that, cause "cheating" is a dirty word. :lol:
And "scumming" is an uplifting, positive term?
Not particuarly, but that's the point isn't it. People think "Savescumming" is cleaner than "Cheating" because there are some points where the majority of folk accept a little savescumming occassionally, but ultimately we are talking about saving and reloading to get around gameplay consequences. (Which is cheating :D )

I use the term savescumming to differentiate from simply saving your game and reloading it, for example after a crash which caused a corruption, or if the devs programmed it badly and you got into a "stuck" spot, or your child decided to break their arm during a real time game and you rushed out leaving it running, and returned to find all your work gone(Yeah that actually happend to me :lol: ).
Gizmo wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 1:42 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 12:00 am
It's a single player game, who else are you going to cheat?
The developers of course; it's disrespectful of their work.
Sure, and that is their choice. But our experience of InXile for example, is that they choose to allow people to play the way they want in most cases. There is a thread with Sear or BrotherNone basically stating that for either TTON or WL2, I can't recall which.
Clearly with BT4 one of the things that people remembered(possibly incorrectly) was the old save system, so it appears in this case they made a change from their normal choice. I think I recall reading that the Beta was different to the full game, and that some were unhappy with the change. (That may have been something else tho).
Anyhoo that isn't pertinent to the discussion. If the Devs have a strong opinion on it, they can do what ever they want. But if they are listening to their customer base, then they would realise that the split on Savescum Vs Ironman is not clear cut one way or the other. (hence the repeating arguments over the years).

Also going to respond to The Bruces stuff sepatately, apologies again for breaking the rules on it. But if I added it in, the post just gets ridiculous (not that it isn't already :lol: :lol: )
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm

thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote: It's still cheating, it's just cheating yourself, instead of someone else.
If the person doesn't think they're cheating themself, because they don't think it's cheating, because the game lets you do it without laying any guilt, then the person won't care one iota if you think they're cheating. Who are you to tell them they're cheating themselves? You might stand a better chance by convincing them they're missing out on a better experience in the end by playing to your standards (which are not the game's). But now you're back to comparing gameplays, which is irrelevant in single player games from an objective standpoint. (people do it by choice)
Ok cool, keep justifying it that way if it makes you feel better :D :P :P
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:Did you bypass a gameplay element by Saving and Reloading?
Nope, you used a game mechanism in the way it was intended. To save a game, and reload a game. Doesn't matter why. To YOU someone who does might be missing out. To someone else they're not. The game doesn't care. It gives you the option to, and doesn't label it as anything but playing the game. It's not objectively cheating. It's cheating to you. That's all. Because you're comparing that person's play style with yours.
I could respond with some more conversation, but clearly we are once again going to go around and around in circles on this so....

NUH UH! :P :P :P

(Also I don't care how you play your game, you can cheat, savescum, ironman it or whatevs, its a single player game. Do what ever the hell you want)
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:If you did, then you are cheating. If the save system is not explicity part of the gameplay, (resting at an inn, restarting the level when you die etc) then it is a funtion outside of gameplay. It's liek importing characters from a previous game. That's not a gameplay function. It just shortcuts the need to create new characters.
Our difference here is that you believe the save system is separate and distinct from "the game", and thus using it is cheating. Your problem now is where is the line? Why is one person who saves and restores cheating while another person isn't? Or do you think that every single player who ever uses the save/restore feature is cheating? If not, then you have drawn a line between cheating and not cheating which the game doesn't provide. Once again, a subjective standard.
If you use it to get around a gameplay mechanic, then yep you are cheating. But who cares. I don't, and if you want to tell yourself its ok then go ahead, but technically it's cheating. :D
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
So therein lies our difference - to me, since I'm arguing from an objective perspective, and because I can't label everyone who uses the save system as a cheater (because obviously not every who does is), my "line" is strictly about what the game allows you do and the intent behind those functions. If you subvert those, then you're cheating.
If the function is not part of the gameplay, then what is its purpose?
So they built the save with a specific function to save the game. Their is no in game cost, there is no Innkeeper to pay for use of the room, there is no mysterious experience loss, etc, so it has no in game effect. Except to save the game. Now it happens to turn out that you can actually use that save function to avoid gameplay that is difficult, or to change your choice. Well that's a surprise. Does the Dev care, maybe. Or maybe they just think, "well it's easier just to let them do it if they want". If you were playing a board game, and you rolled a 6 sided die and had to get 4, but didn't, if you rerolled it, would you be cheating? Of course.
Now if you took that same boardgame and noted all the positions on a piece of paper, and then instead of rerolling, moved everything back to the positions on the paper instead of taking the die roll. Is that cheating? YUP, I can guarantee you no 11 or 8 year is going to let you get away with that. :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
To you, you're fine with claiming a subjective line about what's cheating when it comes to mechanics and features behind the "active gameplaying wall" (for lack of a better term). Anything beyond that wall is not a "game mechanic" and so if use anything beyond that wall to affect gameplay within that wall, then you're cheating.

I can't get behind that view. In my mind that leads to arguments and angst between people who merely disagree on subjective limits. It's very post-modern.
"an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism."
I can get behind that. :lol: :geek: :ugeek:
Yep, that is correct. The thing tho is that the flip side is that you aren't ok with it. Now the question is why? You think that introducing an external mechanic outside the "active gameplaying wall" that directly allows you to affect mechanics to your favour within the "active gameplaying wall" with no consequence to yourself is not cheating.

:geek:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:Of course you are cheating yourself. It's a single player game, who else are you going to cheat? It's still cheating. :lol:
I don't care if you think you cheated yourself. I care when you tell someone else they cheated when it's not by any shared objective standard. I'm trying to determine that standard. The only objective "judge" between two people is a common law-giver. In this case, the game. If the game doesn't think you're cheating, then as it's relevant everyone who uses the game, you're not cheating. You can cheat by someone else's standards (including your own), but it's arrogant to project your own standards on someone else.
Who is projecting? I don't care if you cheat or not. :P :P

ok ok ... I actually did get what you meant, I was just being facetious :-)
But no there are some things that are pretty much accepted as cheating. Using a method outside the actual gameplay in order to get a favourable result, is pretty much universally considered cheating. It's the whole "Favourable result" thing. That's kind of the kicker. If you hadn't of reloaded would you be better off? (And yes I know in some instances games can be tricky and by failing you end up doing better, but that's just the devs fucking with the savescummers :lol: )
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
That's a child on the playground calling the other kid a cheater because they did better by strategizing the win without breaking a rule.
That's a person angry because they're used to playing a boardgame by house rules but they were thwarted by someone who knows the game's actual rules.
Objective rules are important.
Not really. I am suggesting that they are calling the other kid a cheater, because even though he lost a point, he wants to have his go again and not count it.
Which of course is different to the bell ringing mid go, and them going back to class.
And the second example is kind of right... Not sure you meant that. But yeah. Guy goes "House rule, savescumming is ok", other guy goes, "sure but I have the ironman acheivement so Natch!" :geek: :D :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
A single player's game ethic is irrelevant to anyone else; those only involved are the player and the game. So you can cheat yourself by your own standards (I don't care what those are), or you can cheat the game by the game's standards (how the developers define those objective rules does affect me).
Yep. But you said it yourself. You can cheat the game using the games standards. It's a lot like cheat codes actually. They originated from testing code that devs put in a game and forgot to disable. So it was put in there with a purpose (to test some functionality), but along game Tricky Dicky who worked out that a certain key press would enable god mode, and so he had a ball with it. Does that mean the Dev's wanted him to use that mode to cheat the game?

And just to add to the confusion, yep. After cheat codes became popular, they were often put in so players could use them and have a play. As distinct to playing it how they originally meant it to be.
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:I save and reload before going into a big fight. Why not.
Exactly. Why not? It's not cheating the game, but if you do it you could of course feel that you've cheated yourself. No one can tell you you've cheated except yourself.
Cheating the game, as I explained earlier, would be saving before the big fight, then editing the save to max your abilities so you can restore it and kill the boss in 1 round. The game might not tell you you've cheated, but that's because you've now deceived the game to find your success. Part of the definition of cheating I explained earlier.
So we agree.... It's cheating :D
You can get as technical as you want. If you use a function outside of the "active Gameplay wall" to change the gameplay, then you are technically cheating. You may feel like its justified. You may feel that its not cheating. But you are using a tool with one purpose to bypass the gameplay result.
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:Cheat codes are labeled cheat codes, cause that is ALL THEY DO. Saving actually has a purpose other than cheating. You can use the save funtion without cheating. Or you can use it to cheat.
Who says? Who are you to tell me that if I save before the big boss, fail, but don't have time to play again, so restore and win the 2nd time, is cheating or not? I don't care about your standard. The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat. But, to you, if I do have time to play, and I save and restore to win the 2nd time right away, that's cheating? The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat.
Technically yes. Would I call you a cheat for doing it. No. Are you cheating YES. :lol:
Also as I said above, cheat codes originally had a purpose outside of cheating. Then people realised you could use them to cheat, and they became popular. Because sometimes we like to play outside the strict rules of the "active gameplay wall" or whatevs.

Are we going to keep circling each other here? I can go on for a lot longer if you want :twisted:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:It is still a function outside of the gameplay. Just like a cheat code in fact :-)
Not a cheat code you can enter while playing the game. Or have you defined somewhere where that "active gameplay wall" exists that I don't know about in any particular game? Seems to me you're moving the goalposts to define certain game features as "in-game" and "out-of-game". What if a "cheat code" isn't even using some console to enter a string, but visiting a few waypoints in the correct order? How do you define a game-provided function that is no longer part of "the gameplay" and constitutes cheating?
No sir, I don't care what you think when you label things cheating - I care what the game thinks, or what the developers have defined as cheating. (ie, breaking game mechanics not using provided functions, or what's explicitly labeled as such, like "cheat codes")
Ok... Its cool. You can believe that if you want. I don't recall moving goalposts, but you seem to think I am. I've been pretty much saying the same thing this entire argument. :geek:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:Some cheats are not as bad as others, and we accept them in our lives. Why are you so concerned if I call it cheating?
I'm not. I'm concerned if you call someone else a cheater by your own standards they don't accept.
Ok that's cool. So if I use a cheat code, and play through the game and win it, then you say I cheated but I don't accept it, then I didn't cheat?
If you use something outside of the "AGW" to get around in game results, die roll, muliple choice, etc then you are cheating. That is my standard. You don't have to use it, that's cool. But it doesn't change it. :mrgreen:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:
thebruce wrote:If the "ironman thing" (in a game that doesn't provide the mode but is a community-set standard) is where using the save feature in some way is against the "rules", then yes you can cheat on the ironman goal. But if the option is there, provided by the game, to save in an ironman mode, it's not cheating the game to use it.
What? I think I missed the point on that one... sorry :mrgreen:
I think it's because you're not grasping the difference between subjective rules and objective rules.
Nah its because I didn't read the bolded bit for some reason, or it didn't sink in as I read it or whatever. I was thinking you were saying that the ironman mode was including the save stuff. In which case it's not an ironman mode. Soz for the confusion. :oops: :mrgreen:

<Snip the other stuff brought on by my thickiness>
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:It's a single player game. If you want to compare it to everyone else, that is your choice. Personally I am playing for myself.
Your first option makes no sense, why does it matter if they have both the "Ironman" and the "Savescum" achievement? They have the achievement, they have shown they can do it in the Ironman mode as defined by the achievement.
What savescum achievement? I only described one, and two people who earned it according to the game; one saved and restored, the other didn't. Will you then say the one who saved "didn't really" earn the achievement because they cheated? Okay, that's your standard. The game doesn't think so. So it's your word against the game's.
Erm... Ok again. I was confused. I was assuming you meant an ACTUAL Ironman mode. Not simply someone playing in an ironman fashion. Either way, as I mentioned in one of your other options, that can be tracked, you just need to program it with a bit more complexity. Not sure why you wouldn't just implement an "Ironman" mode though.
I mentioned a savescum achievement, because why not. If you can have Ironman achievements, why can't you have a savescum achievement?
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
You could try to equate using the save mechanic to editing a save file, as both being "outside the gameplay", but wow you'd get a lot of pushback! Mainly from people who believe that using the save system for any reason is not cheating. Which, pretty much, is this whole discussion.
Why? I mean I could see that if you changed what consituted receiving the achievement after some people had already achieved it. But if from day 1 you have a programmed Ironman achievement that only fires if you don't save and restore in some fashion, then everyone knows and no one would be losing an achievement.
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:]Option 2... Um that's generally how Ironman works. Well actually Ironman usually locks it down so you can't do the extra saves. Kinda the point of the ironman mode. Soooooo not sure what is different about this and option 1.
It's exactly as I described: Option 1 is ironman mode without restricting saves (why "must" an ironman mode restrict saves? What constitutes Ironman Mode would be entirely up to the developers; the objective rule-maker btw). Option 2 is ironman without restricting saves but recognizing the completion with an achievement the player only receives when not using saves.
Um, its not an ironman mode. You might be playing it as an ironman, but its not a mode. By mode I mean it is a programmed function in the game that sets certain parameters to be different from the base game. If you are just playing it that way, you would need some sort of witness or people to trust that you didn't cheat. That is why people want ironman modes, so that they can play the game in that mode, get the achievement and show it off. In the past before achievements existed sometimes people used the single save to prove it. But of course that was still open to cheating. So you still had to trust the other guy to some degree.

As to what contitutes an Ironman mode. Good question fortunately the achievements invariably tell you that. Now if the devs, say its an ironman mode and then allow freesave anywhere.... Pretty sure they would just be laughed at, and the achievement would be pointless.
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:Option 3. Sure, but let me know in advance so I can consider getting off that train. I have no interest in playing Ironman in a game that eats hours of my life.
That's..entirely your choice. This is an ironman mode that restricts saving, not the general gameplay. But hey if the gameplay chosen by the developers is not the gameplay you'd prefer, then you don't have to play.
Yep. Not sure where you are going with that. If the Dev's make it Ironman by default without free save, then it just means I probably won't buy their product. If they are cool with me and others like me opting out, then thats up to them. But I don't recall this argument being about that. The Dev's will do what they will do. This is simply my preference. Pretty sure I made that clear from the start.
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:
I'm not against having options. BUT, my whole point is that if those options cause the developers to cater the game design and mechanics to certain state or ability then even having the option has indeed affected the single player experience. Case in point, described earlier - grid-locking affecting the game, designed having no grid, so now giving the player the option provides a pointless sub-par experience (which has yet to be determined, but all signs are pointing there so far). As opposed to having designed the game to be balanced whether the option is enabled or not.
Um.. you clearly missed my point. I don't want the Devs to cater to the save mechanic. Build the game at the difficulty level you want, and then add the save mechanic on top. Ignore whether or not people can use it to make it easier/harder.
Why should they ignore players' opinions?
So that they don't have "to cater the game design and mechanics to certain state or abiltity".... ?
I don't think you got my point.

Build the game at a difficulty level the devs want. So they build a hard fight. That fight is hard no matter if you are playing ironman or not. Then if the players want to cheat and keep reloading until they get a success. That is their choice (Or not if they choose Ironman mode).
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
This whole thread was about what effect making the mechanic would have on core gameplay. The whole point was that the save mechanic they chose wasn't optimal, and that making save mechanics an optional setting would have MUCH more of an effect on core gameplay than otherwise.

I've offered my suggestions on how to implement an optional save mechanic feature, which was more than just toggling when you can save your game, but included some variations to core gameplay that would also need to be affected by the setting.
Yep and I offered my preference. Not sure what your point is here. My preference is (close to)open save function in a normal game with an ironman mode. (Or if you want, Ironman normal game with a Savescum mode)

After which Noblesse and I started arguing, and then I made statements about what is technically cheating, and then you got involved. And despite my protestations as to not wanting to argue the thing again, we got into a circular argument, and I have found myself once again down the rabbit hole :lol: :lol: :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Let the players choose their honesty.
That's the problem that you're bringing into the discussion. Again, what's "honest", objectively? Not by your standard? If the game lets them do it, why should they feel guilty by your standards as if they're cheating?
Why does my standard bother you so much? Is it because secretly you know its right and you are feeling guilt for all your evil savescumming ways.. :P :P :P :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:
thebruce wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
Once again, the question is whether the option state affects static gameplay elements. And the argument is that the save mechanic - save anywhere vs an ironman save mode - prompts such a drastic alteration of core gameplay strategies that it can't be just a matter of turning it on or off. I believe the save mechanic option would need to alter other core gameplay features (which were designed with one save mechanic in mind) in order to be an effective (desireable) option.
Nope the question is whether you are cheating or not.
...*blinks*

The rest... no more energy to rehash what's already been stated above.
Welcome to my world :lol:

My point being if they program the game at a certain difficulty, ignoring the save mechanism, then have a free save(or close to) with an added achievement mode/mechanic for those who want the ironman path, then how the users play is irrelevant. The savescummers will be happy, the Ironmen will be happy, the inbetweens will be happy.

If the savescummers don't think it is difficult enough tell them to try "ironman".
If the Ironmen think it is too easy, tell them to gimp themselves on purpose (I played Ironman using only GNOMES!!!!).
Doneski.
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 12th, 2018, 9:41 am

Disclaimer: I really don't care myself about long posts. It does turn off a lot of readers and often leads to the same few people exchanging for pages, but when others are doing it, I often read anyway. And as long as new points are made (or old refuted points are consistently regurgitated) I may see something that needs addressing, or pick up new points of interest. That said...

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Ok cool, keep justifying it that way if it makes you feel better :D :P :P
Your jedi mind-tricks won't work on me. You can't hand-wave the argument away :P
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Nope, you used a game mechanism in the way it was intended. To save a game, and reload a game. Doesn't matter why. To YOU someone who does might be missing out. To someone else they're not. The game doesn't care. It gives you the option to, and doesn't label it as anything but playing the game. It's not objectively cheating. It's cheating to you. That's all. Because you're comparing that person's play style with yours.
I could respond with some more conversation, but clearly we are once again going to go around and around in circles on this so....
Sure, that's called disagreeing on something, and not wanting to admit or address the point directly. That means we dance.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
NUH UH! :P :P :P
Alright, go sit in the corner and think about that tongue of yours for 5 minutes.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
(Also I don't care how you play your game, you can cheat, savescum, ironman it or whatevs, its a single player game. Do what ever the hell you want)
Nor I yours. But that's not my point. My point is that options can affect how developers choose to create static content in the game - so whether a developer includes an option or not can affect both your experience and my experience. So read my comments about the effect of the save mechanic again and my suggestions for how to make the otherwise extremely dramatic different between save anywhere and ironman more reasonable as a toggle, rather than creating core content catered to one or the other.
(you were the one, IIRC, who brought in the whole 'cheating' strand; but I didn't look back so I don't recall who actually started it)
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Our difference here is that you believe the save system is separate and distinct from "the game", and thus using it is cheating. Your problem now is where is the line? Why is one person who saves and restores cheating while another person isn't? Or do you think that every single player who ever uses the save/restore feature is cheating? If not, then you have drawn a line between cheating and not cheating which the game doesn't provide. Once again, a subjective standard.
If you use it to get around a gameplay mechanic, then yep you are cheating. But who cares. I don't, and if you want to tell yourself its ok then go ahead, but technically it's cheating. :D
You literally just missed the entire point of my paragraph. I'm saying the save mechanic is a game mechanic that is provided by developers. You are claiming it's "outside" the gameplay and thus universally cheating (unless you or someone else thinks they're not using it for that). I explained why I cannot agree with your stance, and gave objective reasons why - not just my opinion.
My aim is identify and break down points that prompt argumentation; which ironically usually takes an argument to do, like here. Subjective lines and projecting of personal standards and ethics are not condusive to a friendly community. Your cheating is not necessarily someone else's cheating, or cheating the game. Please, grasp that.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
If the function is not part of the gameplay, then what is its purpose?
To save your game, and restore it subsequently afterwards. The reasons are irrelevant.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Or maybe they just think, "well it's easier just to let them do it if they want". If you were playing a board game, and you rolled a 6 sided die and had to get 4, but didn't, if you rerolled it, would you be cheating? Of course.
Umm... if the game says you can only roll once, then yes rerolling is cheating the game. If the game says you can roll as many times as you like, then no it's not cheating unless you make it cheating by your own standard. Analogy fail.
A game letting you save anywhere is telling you it's not cheating the game.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm

Now if you took that same boardgame and noted all the positions on a piece of paper, and then instead of rerolling, moved everything back to the positions on the paper instead of taking the die roll. Is that cheating? YUP, I can guarantee you no 11 or 8 year is going to let you get away with that. :lol:
Because (presumably) it's against the game's rules. If it's not, then it's not cheating.

Your best argument from this angle is if the game says nothing about the action. Is it allowed or not? Usually that's where house rules come in, and if you're playing with more than 1 person you set that rule before you start so everyone is on the same page (and now knows what is and isn't cheating). For video games that tends to be the difficulty mode. And thus MY argument that an ironman difficulty that changes the save mechanic should also adjust other in-game elements so the game doesn't 'break' because core game content was developed with one setting in mind.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
You think that introducing an external mechanic outside the "active gameplaying wall" that directly allows you to affect mechanics to your favour within the "active gameplaying wall" with no consequence to yourself is not cheating.
Nope, because it's a function of the game and the game cannot possibly judge why I used the function. It's not cheating unless I tell myself that it's cheating. Because it's not cheating the game. We get back into the whole achievement awarding thing again if you want as a way around this, but I really don't want to because it's all been said ad nauseum.
And if I consider it cheating by my own standards, that doesn't give me the right to tell someone else "YOU'RE CHEATING!" because the game allows it and doesn't say it's cheating.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
ok ok ... I actually did get what you meant, I was just being facetious :-)
Aw, and I had yet another paragraph written out to debunk yours!
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
But no there are some things that are pretty much accepted as cheating.
That's as subjective and unenforceable as ever.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Using a method outside the actual gameplay in order to get a favourable result, is pretty much universally considered cheating.
Subjective, regardless. You have to define "actual gameplay". So see above. Still subjective.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
It's the whole "Favourable result" thing. That's kind of the kicker.
There's a gap in a couple of trees at the end of a field that lets you pass by a group of enemies you can't kill. Do you take it for the "favourable result"? Do you know if it's intended gameplay or a bug or exploit? Ahhh, dilemma!
A game allows you to cast a spell to a watcher that snapshots your current progress in life, so that at any point afterwards you can call on this watcher to return you to that point and try something different. Do you use that mechanic for a "favourable result"? Is that its intended gameplay or a mechanic that can be exploited? Ahhh, dilemma!
A game allows you to hit a key to bring up an option to save your game progress anywhere you like, so that at any point afterwards you can hit a key to bring up an option to restore you game progress anywhere you like. Do you use that mechanic for a "favourable result"? Is that its intended gameplay or a mechanic that can be exploited? CHEATING!

Nope.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
That's a child on the playground calling the other kid a cheater because they did better by strategizing the win without breaking a rule.
That's a person angry because they're used to playing a boardgame by house rules but they were thwarted by someone who knows the game's actual rules.
Objective rules are important.
Not really. I am suggesting that they are calling the other kid a cheater, because even though he lost a point, he wants to have his go again and not count it.
Nope, that game has rules, and one is that a point is a point.
Your game is cowboys and indians, and you just fake-shot at your friend who "dodged" it and now you're calling him a cheater, but there's no objective adjuticator to make the call.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
And the second example is kind of right... Not sure you meant that. But yeah. Guy goes "House rule, savescumming is ok", other guy goes, "sure but I have the ironman acheivement so Natch!" :geek: :D :lol:
Okay?
Yes, having an achievement to objectively award, in this case, an ironman run without using save anywhere allows someone to announcement their success - because there was an objectice rule. Breaking that rule means failure. You'd have to cheat to break the rule and gain success.
If there's no recognition of your save strategy, then BOTH people who complete the game - one saving and one not - have completed it without cheating the game.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Yep. But you said it yourself. You can cheat the game using the games standards. It's a lot like cheat codes actually. They originated from testing code that devs put in a game and forgot to disable. So it was put in there with a purpose (to test some functionality), but along game Tricky Dicky who worked out that a certain key press would enable god mode, and so he had a ball with it. Does that mean the Dev's wanted him to use that mode to cheat the game?
Nono, that would be an exploit. Using an intentionally developed mechanic for "favourable results" by using it in a manner that wasn't intended (like a geometry hole above may be an exploit, or statistically analyzing an algorithm to find a loophole, or noticing that a few keys pressed simultaneously causes a calculated overload that gives you an unintended benefit, etc - all using provided game mechanics in an unexpected, unintended manner, for a favourable outcome - exploit). Such a leftover 'hole' can be exploited, and will likely get patched if the developers decide it's cheating (if they don't just leave it and recognize it as a cheat - thus making it from then on an objective cheat).

That's not the same as a code intentionally included in the game by developers for people to use freely - but labeled as a cheat code - which of course, means they consider it cheating the game.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
And just to add to the confusion, yep. After cheat codes became popular, they were often put in so players could use them and have a play. As distinct to playing it how they originally meant it to be.
That's because it was popular to exploit bugs and open loopholes, so eventually game makers decided to embrace the idea and let people "cheat" by defining what is cheating and not. Which game developers call people out in the game overtly as cheaters if they save and restore? The only ones I know of are indirectly the ones that award non-cheating (ie, achievements). Let people play how they want, but instead of restricting capabilities to make the game harder, let's award them for difficult accomplishments.

So first there was exploiting back doors in games that were all gameplay-restricting rules.
Then there were cheat codes to let people break the gameplay-restricting rules if they wanted.
Now there is positive reinforcem-- er, achievements, to minimize gameplay-restricting rules and options and only reward self-enforced rule-abiding.

And yet, the save system is still in limbo it seems by our disagreement of what constitutes a "gameplay-restricting rule" that can be broken (ie, cheating).
I say the only objective standard is what the game as a whole allows/enforces, and what it overtly labels as 'cheating'.
You say the save system is outside the realm of "gameplay" so using it to arbitrarily achieve a "favourable result" is cheating.
(and thus I say yours is not enforceable on anyone else, so telling someone they're cheating by doing it is overreaching)

//end part 1
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

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

Re: Save game system...

Post by thebruce » October 12th, 2018, 9:43 am

Aaaaaand part 2. Can we be done yet? (props btw for remaining civil)
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Woolfe wrote:I save and reload before going into a big fight. Why not.
Exactly. Why not? It's not cheating the game, but if you do it you could of course feel that you've cheated yourself. No one can tell you you've cheated except yourself.
Cheating the game, as I explained earlier, would be saving before the big fight, then editing the save to max your abilities so you can restore it and kill the boss in 1 round. The game might not tell you you've cheated, but that's because you've now deceived the game to find your success. Part of the definition of cheating I explained earlier.
So we agree.... It's cheating :D
??? No, I'm trying to tell you there's a difference between cheating the game and cheating yourself.
Editing your save file is in a whole other universe than saving and restoring your game. Am I still not being clear about that?

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
Who says? Who are you to tell me that if I save before the big boss, fail, but don't have time to play again, so restore and win the 2nd time, is cheating or not? I don't care about your standard. The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat. But, to you, if I do have time to play, and I save and restore to win the 2nd time right away, that's cheating? The game let me do it. I can justify to myself that I'm not cheating. I can play through in good conscience. I didn't cheat.
Technically yes. Would I call you a cheat for doing it. No. Are you cheating YES. :lol:
Whatwhat? That is so backwards. So the game doesn't say I'm cheating, and you wouldn't call me cheating, but somehow I'm still cheating?? Dude, you're all over the place. This is why I'm deconstructing the issue to the objective standard, not anyone's opinion.
If the game allows it, it's not cheating the game.
If you allow it, it's not cheating against you.
If our competition allows it, it's not cheating the competition.
If any of the above don't allow it, it's cheating only in that context.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Ok... Its cool. You can believe that if you want. I don't recall moving goalposts, but you seem to think I am. I've been pretty much saying the same thing this entire argument. :geek:
Apparently, and entirely handwaving away the point I'm trying to make.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Ok that's cool. So if I use a cheat code, and play through the game and win it, then you say I cheated but I don't accept it, then I didn't cheat?
By the game's standard YES and I can say you cheated the game. Absolutely. And you can't deny that. But if you're playing with your own ruleset, you could say "yeah I use a cheat code, but I'm trying for another goal and I'm allowing myself to use the cheat code." In other words, you didn't cheat yourself, even though you recognize you're cheating the game.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
If you use something outside of the "AGW" to get around in game results, die roll, muliple choice, etc then you are cheating. That is my standard. You don't have to use it, that's cool. But it doesn't change it. :mrgreen:
If you don't care, then stop telling people they are cheating if they use the save anywhere feature provided by the game! They're not playing by your self-imposed standard.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
I was thinking you were saying that the ironman mode was including the save stuff. In which case it's not an ironman mode. Soz for the confusion.
...uhh... if the developers allow it in the ironman mode they define, then it's still an ironman mode. It may not be your definition of an ironman mode, but it's theirs (whatever the public opinion of it may be). Am I still not clear enough on that?
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
I mentioned in one of your other options, [save scumming] can be tracked, you just need to program it with a bit more complexity. Not sure why you wouldn't just implement an "Ironman" mode though.
Because some people want to be able to save anywhere. So developers have to decide if they want to restrict save anywhere in an ironman mode. And we get back to a suggestion I made for how to make that work in BT4 since they developed core gameplay mechanics around the system they implemented which is dramatically altered with the option.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
I mentioned a savescum achievement, because why not. If you can have Ironman achievements, why can't you have a savescum achievement?
How would you "achieve" save scumming? How would the game know if you were saving to, by your standard, cheat, vs being unavoidably called away to return later? Or would you award the "save scumming" achievement the first time someone uses the save function for any reason whatsoever?
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
thebruce wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 7:45 am
It's exactly as I described: Option 1 is ironman mode without restricting saves (why "must" an ironman mode restrict saves? What constitutes Ironman Mode would be entirely up to the developers; the objective rule-maker btw). Option 2 is ironman without restricting saves but recognizing the completion with an achievement the player only receives when not using saves.
Um, its not an ironman mode.
No, it's not the ironman mode you envision. Why MUST an ironman mode have a specific save system? It's 100% up to the developers to decide and enforce. What you're describing is a self-imposed ruleset if it differs from what the game provides.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
By mode I mean it is a programmed function in the game that sets certain parameters to be different from the base game. If you are just playing it that way, you would need some sort of witness or people to trust that you didn't cheat.
Exaaaaaactly. The game doesn't know. The game doesn't tell you you're cheating unless you do something it doesn't want you to do. The game can easily restrict the save function depending on your mode, or it might not. Whatever it does, that is the game's definition of the ironman mode, whether you think it's sufficient or not.
If they instead choose to make an ironman achievement, it's a positive reinforcement application of a ruleset. Instead of restricting gameplay elements in a game mode, the rules are enforced objectively behind the scenes. Accomplish the goal properly, and earn the reward - because the game has determined you accomplished it legitimately. Unless of course, you intentionally deceived the game (say, edited your save file), to achieve the same outcome. But the achievement may or may not be programmed to test for saving and loading. If the achievement allows it, then the game has allowed it in that goal - it wasn't cheating the game!
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
That is why people want ironman modes, so that they can play the game in that mode, get the achievement and show it off.
Different applications of a ruleset. One is gameplay-restricting, one is gameplay-rewarding. Both have rules. Breaking the rules is cheating. If it's not a rule, it's not cheating the game. If saving is allowed (in gameplay, or to still earn the achievement) it's not cheating the game. If saving is disallowed (from gameplay, or disqualifies the achievement) then a rule has been defined and breaking it is cheating if you accomplish the same outcome.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
As to what contitutes an Ironman mode. Good question fortunately the achievements invariably tell you that. Now if the devs, say its an ironman mode and then allow freesave anywhere.... Pretty sure they would just be laughed at, and the achievement would be pointless.
The developers still have to decide. I can't say that just because an ironman mode allows saving means it's "not really" an ironman. That's a no true scotsman. If they do that, and people don't like it, they'll get that feedback. Just like whether they feel they should patch up and close an exploit (bug or not). Geez, Halo has loads of exploits, but they leave many of them open because people enjoy the strangeness that can come with taking advantage of them. Speedrunners may take advantage of exploits, and in contests many exploits (from the intended single-player standard) are allowed and not cheating because it's a common shared arbitrary rule for that speedrun.

Whether save anywhere should be allowed in a game's "Ironman mode", assuming developers create one, entirely depends on the game's style and mechanics. I can absolutely picture a game style could still reasonably offer saving anywhere in an ironman mode.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Build the game at a difficulty level the devs want. So they build a hard fight. That fight is hard no matter if you are playing ironman or not. Then if the players want to cheat and keep reloading until they get a success. That is their choice (Or not if they choose Ironman mode).
If the devs allow saving anywhere in the ironman mode they've provided, then saving before the boss is not cheating the game. *sigh*
If the devs make an ironman mode and disable saving anywhere, then that'll be one heck of a boss fight!
Oh hey, we're back to my suggestion for BT4 - if the boss fight is win or die (or in this case every combat encounter), and there's no save to restore in this lengthy dungeon crawler, that is AWFUL. If inXile wants to provide an ironman/hardcore mode with AG-only saving (if any at all), then they must change the core combat mechanic along with it, and provide an ability to run without dying, just as the original trilogy did.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
After which Noblesse and I started arguing, and then I made statements about what is technically cheating, and then you got involved. And despite my protestations as to not wanting to argue the thing again, we got into a circular argument, and I have found myself once again down the rabbit hole :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm just trying to help you (no, really) not offend people by presumptuously telling them they're cheating (even though you don't care how they play) by arbitrary ethical standards that are neither the game's, nor necessarily their own, especially if they're only doing what the game allows them to do without any reference to cheating.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Why does my standard bother you so much? Is it because secretly you know its right and you are feeling guilt for all your evil savescumming ways.. :P :P :P :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No, it's because it's insulting. And the definition of continuing to insult, knowing it's insulting, and laying onus on your target to not be insulted (eg "why would you care anyway?"), is trolling. Why not be positive? Like my prior suggestion - don't tell them they're cheating (by your standards), but encourage them to try a harder standard (yours) that you feel is more rewarding when you achieve success? And not presumptuously insult people's ethics.

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
My point being if they program the game at a certain difficulty, ignoring the save mechanism, then have a free save(or close to) with an added achievement mode/mechanic for those who want the ironman path, then how the users play is irrelevant. The savescummers will be happy, the Ironmen will be happy, the inbetweens will be happy.
I don't disagree with that.

Just don't call people cheaters if they decide to save the game anywhere as a safety net and the game allows it.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3731
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 12th, 2018, 11:56 am

thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
(Also I don't care how you play your game, you can cheat, savescum, ironman it or whatevs, its a single player game. Do what ever the hell you want)
Nor I yours. But that's not my point. My point is that options can affect how developers choose to create static content in the game - so whether a developer includes an option or not can affect both your experience and my experience.
This is also precisely my own sentiment and point; from my earlier posts. Image

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 13th, 2018, 10:00 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
My point with him of course is that not every game needs to be a comptetively judged ironman run. :lol:
And my point with Woolfe is that not every game needs to have save scumming available.
Agreed!

But where do we draw the line. This would be my rough subjective definition.

where gamelay under 2 hours - Ironman only is good.
Greater than 2 hours - Ironman Option is good but some other method save is required.
Greater than 10 hours - Ironman Option is good but definately some method of free saving to allow you to go back to earlier parts of the game if you cock it up or just don't want to have spend hours doing the same thing to take a different path.

Obviously value changes for everyone, but for me, a 10 hour plus game that was only ironman. I wouldn't even bother starting it. I would baulk at a 2-10 hour game that was only Ironman.
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I still have a desire for longer games which do not allow unlimited save/restore. Various Rogue-likes that I have played are much longer than 10 hours and have only one save slot to restore from. (And for them, "ironman" means something else - it means not being able to go back up dungeon levels, so that you're always forced to go down into deeper, deadlier levels - no level scumming. And, it can also mean not getting any artifacts.) So, at least some Rogue-likes cater to my tastes and the projected length of game play has nothing to do with it.

I remember one time when I played Angband and was two thirds of the way to Morgoth (i.e., somewhere between dungeon level 60 and 70) when my character got killed. After all the hours I had sank into the game, I just sat there with a slack jaw for a few minutes, shell-shocked. Iirc, there was an opportunity to hard kill the game process before the writeout of the character file after the RIP screen. I chose not to take it. It was a hard decision, but it would have been cheating, since it relied on metagame means of defeating the game's intended play mechanism. I walked away from the game for a couple weeks and then played with fresh ideas and greater caution. Given that almost everything in the game is random, there was still plenty of replayability to be had.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 10:12 pm
They just don't want to call it that, cause "cheating" is a dirty word. :lol:
And "scumming" is an uplifting, positive term?
Not particuarly, but that's the point isn't it. People think "Savescumming" is cleaner than "Cheating" because there are some points where the majority of folk accept a little savescumming occassionally, but ultimately we are talking about saving and reloading to get around gameplay consequences. (Which is cheating :D )
I think our definitions of cheating differ. If the game itself provides a mechanism to explore the decision tree it offers and people take advantage of that to seek optimal outcomes, then it is scumming. Cheating would be like editing the characters or hard-killing the game process right before a disaster occurred. I haven't been following the back-and-forth between you and thebruce, but I do agree with him that scumming is not cheating. "Abusing" or "exploiting" would be how I describe it.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
I use the term savescumming to differentiate from simply saving your game and reloading it, for example after a crash which caused a corruption, or if the devs programmed it badly and you got into a "stuck" spot,
Corruption can be an issue but there are ways of dealing with that in single save slot systems, actually.
Likewise, you can hard kill the process if you're in stuck spot and then restore from the point you last made your save when you come back.

But, yeah, I know how you're using the term save scumming - the part I don't agree with is calling it cheating.
It's abuse of the save system to achieve unnatural outcomes. (Just as start scumming is an abuse of start position generation and level scumming is an abuse of level generation to get lower danger, high treasure levels.)
By not wanting people to scum, I am not concerned with cheating but with how it diminishes the player's experience of the game, including how the player socializes about the game.

BT1 had "heal scumming" by using Badhr Kilnfest during intra-party combat. No random encounters could occur during that time and the party members could just defend each round while the bard song healed them round after round. In this case, it was usually referred to as the "healing exploit". One could also argue that repeatedly grinding the 396 Berserkers in Harkyn's 3 was XP scumming. If you want to call abuse, utilization of exploits, or scumming as "cheating", then where do you draw the line?
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
or your child decided to break their arm during a real time game and you rushed out leaving it running, and returned to find all your work gone(Yeah that actually happend to me :lol: ).
Ow!
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 14th, 2018, 5:46 am

thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Disclaimer: I really don't care myself about long posts. It does turn off a lot of readers and often leads to the same few people exchanging for pages, but when others are doing it, I often read anyway. And as long as new points are made (or old refuted points are consistently regurgitated) I may see something that needs addressing, or pick up new points of interest. That said...
I'm happy to remove the majority of the quotes, providing that doesn't create too much confusion.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Your jedi mind-tricks won't work on me. You can't hand-wave the argument away :P
:lol: :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Sure, that's called disagreeing on something, and not wanting to admit or address the point directly. That means we dance.
Dammit, now I have this stuck in my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB1Q-PfUvN0 :lol: :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Alright, go sit in the corner and think about that tongue of yours for 5 minutes.
:lol:
Well I was trying to reduce some of the repetitive bits of this argument. Cause there really is only 2 arguments. Is Savescumming cheating,(yes) and should the devs care and waste precious resources on something that won't please everyone.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
(Also I don't care how you play your game, you can cheat, savescum, ironman it or whatevs, its a single player game. Do what ever the hell you want)
Nor I yours. But that's not my point. My point is that options can affect how developers choose to create static content in the game - so whether a developer includes an option or not can affect both your experience and my experience. So read my comments about the effect of the save mechanic again and my suggestions for how to make the otherwise extremely dramatic different between save anywhere and ironman more reasonable as a toggle, rather than creating core content catered to one or the other.
(you were the one, IIRC, who brought in the whole 'cheating' strand; but I didn't look back so I don't recall who actually started it)
Indeed I was. Because it is technically cheating. And as I said, I wouldn't call you a cheat, unless of course you were trying to compare how awesome you were with someone else, and even then I wouldn't call you a cheat, probably something else though :-P
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
You literally just missed the entire point of my paragraph. I'm saying the save mechanic is a game mechanic that is provided by developers. You are claiming it's "outside" the gameplay and thus universally cheating (unless you or someone else thinks they're not using it for that). I explained why I cannot agree with your stance, and gave objective reasons why - not just my opinion.
My aim is identify and break down points that prompt argumentation; which ironically usually takes an argument to do, like here. Subjective lines and projecting of personal standards and ethics are not condusive to a friendly community. Your cheating is not necessarily someone else's cheating, or cheating the game. Please, grasp that.
And you seem to have missed mine. Whether or not you believe something doesn't make it true. You can state the world is flat, and I Round, but only one of us is correct. :P
If you use a non gameplay function to get around gameplay then you are cheating. As much as if you typed a cheat code that gave you 200% health, as opposed to finding an in game artifact that does the same thing. Or if you used a cheat code to ensure you got full stats, versus using the game function to reroll a random character.
In this case you are using the save function to try and pick a broken lock again, instead of having a magic picklock that allows you another try.
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
If the function is not part of the gameplay, then what is its purpose?
To save your game, and restore it subsequently afterwards. The reasons are irrelevant.
See again you are agreeing with me. :D The REASONS are irrelevant to the function. But the Reasons are not irrelevant to the gameplay.
The natural state of a game is to be played to completion(not always, but in the case of RPG's it usually is). Now in a game that takes 2 hours or so, you can do that. You can set aside the time and play end to end. But in a longer game this becomes too difficult. We all have real lives that need attending, spending 120hours to complete a game in one sitting, is a little bit unreasonable. Hence we now have the save functionality. But the need for it is not in the gameplay(Ignoring games that use lives for the moment).
Now as I said a few posts ago. The save function can be part of the game (rest at inn, touch object etc), or outside of the gameplay. If it is part of the game, then there is a cost to use it. That cost is accounted for in the difficulty because it is part of the game. However if the save function is outside of the game then you have 2 choices. You can account for it. Which means that you now have to assume everyone is going to use it, at which point you have to start changing in game difficulty(And possibly punish those who don't use it, or make it too easy for those who do), and even in game functions(see Minigames vs random chance), suddenly this element that was meant to be something that helps the players becomes a pain in the arse. Or you assume we are all adults here, and we will either use the save function for its intended purpose, or we won't, they can't easily stop it without complex design decisions, so just allow the players to do what they want, and ignore any ramifications. Add in an Ironman mode, for the die-hards and be satisfied.

thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Or maybe they just think, "well it's easier just to let them do it if they want". If you were playing a board game, and you rolled a 6 sided die and had to get 4, but didn't, if you rerolled it, would you be cheating? Of course.
Umm... if the game says you can only roll once, then yes rerolling is cheating the game. If the game says you can roll as many times as you like, then no it's not cheating unless you make it cheating by your own standard. Analogy fail.
A game letting you save anywhere is telling you it's not cheating the game.
I'm sorry, but when did the save function become a reroll function. If you use the save, to get a free reroll, then you are cheating.
Analogy works fine. You are not allowed to reroll in the boardgame, and you aren't allowed to reroll in the computer game. But hey, we all have that annoying little sister/brother/friend who claims the die was cocked or they didn't mean to throw it yet etc. We all let them get away with it once or twice... but we also all knew they were cheating. :D
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm

Now if you took that same boardgame and noted all the positions on a piece of paper, and then instead of rerolling, moved everything back to the positions on the paper instead of taking the die roll. Is that cheating? YUP, I can guarantee you no 11 or 8 year is going to let you get away with that. :lol:
Because (presumably) it's against the game's rules. If it's not, then it's not cheating.
Actually quite a few long boardgames recommend noting down positions and keeping them if you aren't able to finish in one setting. Does that mean it is now ok to "reload" to that "saved" game just because you rolled poorly?
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Your best argument from this angle is if the game says nothing about the action. Is it allowed or not? Usually that's where house rules come in, and if you're playing with more than 1 person you set that rule before you start so everyone is on the same page (and now knows what is and isn't cheating).
Nah... now you are just being specious. Lots of games don't explicitly tell you what you can't do on a variety of things. They assume a certain honesty about the players. Monopoly for example doesn't explicitly say the banker can't steal money. But everyone knows that rule, cause its obviously cheating.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
For video games that tends to be the difficulty mode. And thus MY argument that an ironman difficulty that changes the save mechanic should also adjust other in-game elements so the game doesn't 'break' because core game content was developed with one setting in mind.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. It's not on my agenda. If you have an Ironman mode, that makes it harder. Ok. But traditionally the Ironman terminology has applied primarily to the save mode. I mean I don't have a problem if they want to go all out and have multiple levels of difficulty. My comments have been directed as a personal preference, and the best "catch all, without expending valuable resources on non gameplay functions". I want the devs working on making a brilliant game. I'd rather see a nice economic model than a fancy save system, or a better weapon crafting, or stealth, or story or in game something.

thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
You think that introducing an external mechanic outside the "active gameplaying wall" that directly allows you to affect mechanics to your favour within the "active gameplaying wall" with no consequence to yourself is not cheating.
Nope, because it's a function of the game and the game cannot possibly judge why I used the function. It's not cheating unless I tell myself that it's cheating. Because it's not cheating the game. We get back into the whole achievement awarding thing again if you want as a way around this, but I really don't want to because it's all been said ad nauseum.
And if I consider it cheating by my own standards, that doesn't give me the right to tell someone else "YOU'RE CHEATING!" because the game allows it and doesn't say it's cheating.
This has been answered above. And indeed ad nauseum, hence why I wanted to end this stupid circular argument.
It's a function of the game, but not of the gameplay.
By the way, just to really upset people, Respecing is also cheating. Unless there is an in game cost.
In the old gold box games, when you could edit your PC stats to the max... that was cheating as well. Sure everyone did it, and pretty sure it was expected, but its not really how the game is meant to be played is it?
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
ok ok ... I actually did get what you meant, I was just being facetious :-)
Aw, and I had yet another paragraph written out to debunk yours!
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
But no there are some things that are pretty much accepted as cheating.
That's as subjective and unenforceable as ever.
Rerolling a bad outcome, is cheating, unless you have a gameplay mechanic for it.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Using a method outside the actual gameplay in order to get a favourable result, is pretty much universally considered cheating.
Subjective, regardless. You have to define "actual gameplay". So see above. Still subjective.
And is there a problem with defining "actual gameplay" it is in fact a game after all.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
It's the whole "Favourable result" thing. That's kind of the kicker.
There's a gap in a couple of trees at the end of a field that lets you pass by a group of enemies you can't kill. Do you take it for the "favourable result"? Do you know if it's intended gameplay or a bug or exploit? Ahhh, dilemma!
A game allows you to cast a spell to a watcher that snapshots your current progress in life, so that at any point afterwards you can call on this watcher to return you to that point and try something different. Do you use that mechanic for a "favourable result"? Is that its intended gameplay or a mechanic that can be exploited? Ahhh, dilemma!
A game allows you to hit a key to bring up an option to save your game progress anywhere you like, so that at any point afterwards you can hit a key to bring up an option to restore you game progress anywhere you like. Do you use that mechanic for a "favourable result"? Is that its intended gameplay or a mechanic that can be exploited? CHEATING!

Nope.
Specious again. Your first 2 examples are purely in game. You moved in game through some trees to get past your enemy. The second, you have gone in game to someone and created an in game save, that means you have the ability in the game world, a lot of games even give a conceit to the story to explain the reload away, sometimes it is a core mechanic of gameplay(prince of persia for example).
But your last example. Once again is separate, there is no in game explanation, you have just pressed a button on your keyboard or controller and suddenly the game has saved. Therefore it is outside the game. So yep in that case, it is cheating.

thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Not really. I am suggesting that they are calling the other kid a cheater, because even though he lost a point, he wants to have his go again and not count it.
Nope, that game has rules, and one is that a point is a point.
And if one of them wanted to redo their point, then they are cheating, because there are rules.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Your game is cowboys and indians, and you just fake-shot at your friend who "dodged" it and now you're calling him a cheater, but there's no objective adjuticator to make the call.
But that's a multiplayer game for one thing. Which requires different standards. For the other its still specious. Because one or both were cheating. Either the first kid really did shoot him, or the second kid really did dodge. Being able to prove it, is not the argument.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
And the second example is kind of right... Not sure you meant that. But yeah. Guy goes "House rule, savescumming is ok", other guy goes, "sure but I have the ironman acheivement so Natch!" :geek: :D :lol:
Okay?
Yes, having an achievement to objectively award, in this case, an ironman run without using save anywhere allows someone to announcement their success - because there was an objectice rule. Breaking that rule means failure. You'd have to cheat to break the rule and gain success.
If there's no recognition of your save strategy, then BOTH people who complete the game - one saving and one not - have completed it without cheating the game.
In which case its not ironman. So with an ironman mode in a game, or an ironman achievement you would presumably have some function that checks and confirms based on the parameters of the mode or achievement. If that mode or achievement doesn't specify saving, then Sure they would both have it. But generally the accepted rule is that Ironman mode means no savescumming at the very least.
If the game can't or doesn't create an achievement based on those details, then true ironman could only be done with trusted witnesses.
I am confused by your line of thinking here, it doesn't appear to be relevant.
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
Yep. But you said it yourself. You can cheat the game using the games standards. It's a lot like cheat codes actually. They originated from testing code that devs put in a game and forgot to disable. So it was put in there with a purpose (to test some functionality), but along game Tricky Dicky who worked out that a certain key press would enable god mode, and so he had a ball with it. Does that mean the Dev's wanted him to use that mode to cheat the game?
Nono, that would be an exploit. Using an intentionally developed mechanic for "favourable results" by using it in a manner that wasn't intended (like a geometry hole above may be an exploit, or statistically analyzing an algorithm to find a loophole, or noticing that a few keys pressed simultaneously causes a calculated overload that gives you an unintended benefit, etc - all using provided game mechanics in an unexpected, unintended manner, for a favourable outcome - exploit). Such a leftover 'hole' can be exploited, and will likely get patched if the developers decide it's cheating (if they don't just leave it and recognize it as a cheat - thus making it from then on an objective cheat).

That's not the same as a code intentionally included in the game by developers for people to use freely - but labeled as a cheat code - which of course, means they consider it cheating the game.
No one would accept a comparison of 2 games where one player used god mode to claim victory. You can try and claim that is an exploit, but it isn't, it is an out and out cheat. Cheat code's are exploits... :lol: Pull the other one, it's got bells on :lol: :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:29 pm
And just to add to the confusion, yep. After cheat codes became popular, they were often put in so players could use them and have a play. As distinct to playing it how they originally meant it to be.
That's because it was popular to exploit bugs and open loopholes, so eventually game makers decided to embrace the idea and let people "cheat" by defining what is cheating and not. Which game developers call people out in the game overtly as cheaters if they save and restore? The only ones I know of are indirectly the ones that award non-cheating (ie, achievements). Let people play how they want, but instead of restricting capabilities to make the game harder, let's award them for difficult accomplishments.
Easy win for you, most devs probably realise that calling their playerbase cheats isn't the best plan. :lol:
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
So first there was exploiting back doors in games that were all gameplay-restricting rules.
Then there were cheat codes to let people break the gameplay-restricting rules if they wanted.
Now there is positive reinforcem-- er, achievements, to minimize gameplay-restricting rules and options and only reward self-enforced rule-abiding.
Nope... they were cheats not exploits. The originals were never intended to be discovered, the others were labeled "cheat codes". And even if that blatant hint wasn't enough, they broke the gameplay mechanisms either by giving a non gameplay advantage (Money for nothing) or breaking a gameplay element (Can't take damage).
thebruce wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 9:41 am
And yet, the save system is still in limbo it seems by our disagreement of what constitutes a "gameplay-restricting rule" that can be broken (ie, cheating).
I say the only objective standard is what the game as a whole allows/enforces, and what it overtly labels as 'cheating'.
You say the save system is outside the realm of "gameplay" so using it to arbitrarily achieve a "favourable result" is cheating.
(and thus I say yours is not enforceable on anyone else, so telling someone they're cheating by doing it is overreaching)

//end part 1
Shrug. If you can lie to yourself about it, that's great. But the reality is you are using a non gameplay mechanism to create a favourable gameplay result. It's cheating.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 14th, 2018, 5:59 am

Alright, so I posted part 1 before I read part 2.

If your issue is me calling people cheats, then fine I shall return to "savescum" but we are splitting hairs.

I would like to say though that I did not want, nor did I even really start this argument.

This is what I stated
Woolfe wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 6:21 pm
2 options required.... Save anywhere and Ironman mode.

Then Everyone is happy.
And now we have several pages of a discussion on the merits of whether savescumming is cheating, which I have not been convinced it is not. I am not trolling. You can take that to be insulting but that IS on you.

Never the less, I will stop and bow out now, like I tried to do several days ago.
Further if you would like me to edit my above reply to you, PM me, and I will do so. (Though it is 11pm at the moment and I am about to go to bed)
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 14th, 2018, 6:22 am

_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 13th, 2018, 10:00 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm

And my point with Woolfe is that not every game needs to have save scumming available.
Agreed!

But where do we draw the line. This would be my rough subjective definition.

where gamelay under 2 hours - Ironman only is good.
Greater than 2 hours - Ironman Option is good but some other method save is required.
Greater than 10 hours - Ironman Option is good but definately some method of free saving to allow you to go back to earlier parts of the game if you cock it up or just don't want to have spend hours doing the same thing to take a different path.

Obviously value changes for everyone, but for me, a 10 hour plus game that was only ironman. I wouldn't even bother starting it. I would baulk at a 2-10 hour game that was only Ironman.
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I still have a desire for longer games which do not allow unlimited save/restore. Various Rogue-likes that I have played are much longer than 10 hours and have only one save slot to restore from. (And for them, "ironman" means something else - it means not being able to go back up dungeon levels, so that you're always forced to go down into deeper, deadlier levels - no level scumming. And, it can also mean not getting any artifacts.) So, at least some Rogue-likes cater to my tastes and the projected length of game play has nothing to do with it.

I remember one time when I played Angband and was two thirds of the way to Morgoth (i.e., somewhere between dungeon level 60 and 70) when my character got killed. After all the hours I had sank into the game, I just sat there with a slack jaw for a few minutes, shell-shocked. Iirc, there was an opportunity to hard kill the game process before the writeout of the character file after the RIP screen. I chose not to take it. It was a hard decision, but it would have been cheating, since it relied on metagame means of defeating the game's intended play mechanism. I walked away from the game for a couple weeks and then played with fresh ideas and greater caution. Given that almost everything in the game is random, there was still plenty of replayability to be had.
Yeah and they are the games that work with that sort of gameplay. But that is known from the outset. I play those games occasionally, and like you I enjoy them. But I don't want every game to be that, and most of those games today have a way around the ironman mode, allowing you the choice. The only difference is which it defaults to.

And by having a save anywhere, with an ironman mode. Or Ironman default with a save anywhere mode. It lets both of us enjoy the game how we want it.
The argument on proof is best served by achievements(ingame prefereably). Or you use the old school method. Have someone sit over your shoulder and confirm. Cause most of the old games had ways around the single save.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
I think our definitions of cheating differ. If the game itself provides a mechanism to explore the decision tree it offers and people take advantage of that to seek optimal outcomes, then it is scumming. Cheating would be like editing the characters or hard-killing the game process right before a disaster occurred. I haven't been following the back-and-forth between you and thebruce, but I do agree with him that scumming is not cheating. "Abusing" or "exploiting" would be how I describe it.
Fair enough, I have had my say on that and won't comment further on it as I don't want to upset people.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Corruption can be an issue but there are ways of dealing with that in single save slot systems, actually.
Likewise, you can hard kill the process if you're in stuck spot and then restore from the point you last made your save when you come back.

But, yeah, I know how you're using the term save scumming - the part I don't agree with is calling it cheating.
It's abuse of the save system to achieve unnatural outcomes. (Just as start scumming is an abuse of start position generation and level scumming is an abuse of level generation to get lower danger, high treasure levels.)
By not wanting people to scum, I am not concerned with cheating but with how it diminishes the player's experience of the game, including how the player socializes about the game.

BT1 had "heal scumming" by using Badhr Kilnfest during intra-party combat. No random encounters could occur during that time and the party members could just defend each round while the bard song healed them round after round. In this case, it was usually referred to as the "healing exploit". One could also argue that repeatedly grinding the 396 Berserkers in Harkyn's 3 was XP scumming. If you want to call abuse, utilization of exploits, or scumming as "cheating", then where do you draw the line?
An exploit is an exploit, devs screw up. You think they intended the healing exploit to work that way? I don't know the Berserker xp scumming issue, If it was some bug that constantly recreated those berserkers when everyone else got permanently removed, then yeah, but if it was just the most efficient xp gathering, then no cause the game was presumably meant to include a degree of grind.
Life isn't black and white, we accept some things, but there is a reason we keep coming up with different terms for these things? Rather than just accepting that it is the gameplay.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:12 pm
or your child decided to break their arm during a real time game and you rushed out leaving it running, and returned to find all your work gone(Yeah that actually happend to me :lol: ).
Ow!
Indeed... he handled it awesomely the crazy little ratbag :-), was super proud of him
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest