Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Post Reply
User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2770
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by paultakeda » May 2nd, 2017, 9:33 pm

Gizmo wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:24 pm
paultakeda wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:20 pm
That would be the dev's choice, sure.
And this was the point being made... That having it at all could affect everyone's game —whether they use it or not.
My position is that unlike "restricted saves", the "save anywhere" mechanic could exist outside of design as a convenience function. The other position is that it could not, and therefore would affect everyone. Your nuance here is that developers would always take the save mechanic into account even if it was "save anywhere", which puts the onus on the developer, whereas Zombra has in the past admitted that he would exploit "save anywhere" and self-ruin his experience regardless of the developer's design choices.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9463
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Drool » May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm

Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
I'm saying that it is not always in the player's best interest to let him choose moment to moment the outcome of every situation.
I'm currently playing Murdered: Soul Suspect. It uses checkpoint saving and has absolutely no manual saves at all. I get why they did it, but it has its drawbacks. Now, I don't mind if I have to restart a scene after getting rid of two out of three demons, but I really dislike the choice I'm left with when I want to quit playing. I'm left with either just quitting and replaying stuff, or continue playing until the game decides I'm allowed to quit.

This is a terrible system.

I understand your desire to curb save scumming, but I would much prefer the game systems be adjusted to make it less desirable or useful. Like my idea before of reworking critical failures. Or, at the very, very least, a save-and-quit option like Diablo had. But I have a very hard time powering through a game that doesn't let me save when I need to stop playing, and I think it's just pointlessly hostile game design.

And, personally, I really hate "typewriter ribbon" style save tokens.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3556
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Gizmo » May 2nd, 2017, 9:54 pm

paultakeda wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:33 pm
Your nuance here is that developers would always take the save mechanic into account even if it was "save anywhere", which puts the onus on the developer, whereas Zombra has in the past admitted that he would exploit "save anywhere" and self-ruin his experience regardless of the developer's design choices.
They only might —but otherwise no argument there. ;)
Drool wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm
Or, at the very, very least, a save-and-quit option like Diablo had.
I was about to say the same. I liked that about the game... IRRC didn't they remove that with a patch? :(

User avatar
undecaf
Explorer
Posts: 398
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 5:48 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by undecaf » May 2nd, 2017, 11:55 pm

It really should be enough to just discourage the act of savescumming by making it a chore. I think WL2 already did a fairly good job of it with the skill-test animations. Whoever wanted to power through a <24% lock, certainly earned what ever five scrap junk he got from the container.

And there are methods of makng the simulation of those mechanics more complex and "interesting" should the need be there (and in the light that Zombra certainly isn't the only one with those argumets - even if it seems to be the minority one - it would probably even be lucrative to do so).



EDIT: By the way, I haven't played it for a while, but I remembered something.... Wasn't there some kind of save counter in WL2:DC? That if you saved X number of times within a map you needed to exit and re-enter the map to be able to save again?

I remember getting these "You can not save at this point" messages and wondered what was going on. And since nothing was, the only logical conclusion was that I had "exhausted" my saves for the map for the time being.
"A human being in his last extremity IS a bag of shit."

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Remo » May 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am

Save-Scumming has become a strange obsession in recent years, partly driven by older gamers with nostalgia googles,"hardcores" (who spend most of their time on games and often still seeking to prove something), and the edgy self appointed watchdogs of industry (although actually dog in the manger).

In reality there is nothing new under the sun. There is no way to prevent Save-Scumming in SP, any and all variation of save systems have been tested in the last few decades, and any game designer know each system pros/cons.

I feel that combination of save-anywhere, difficulty settings and ironman has proven to offer the most players and developers a like, and that WL2 struck a good balance there.

User avatar
Grohal
Master
Posts: 1001
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Grohal » May 3rd, 2017, 2:48 am

Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am
Save-Scumming has become a strange obsession in recent years, partly driven by older gamers with nostalgia googles,"hardcores" (who spend most of their time on games and often still seeking to prove something), and the edgy self appointed watchdogs of industry (although actually dog in the manger).

...
Well, I spend most of my freetime on games - but not because I want to prove something (what and to whom?), but because I enjoy some games. Good RPGs and even more so good strategy games can easily eat hundreds of hours for me. :mrgreen:
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3556
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Gizmo » May 3rd, 2017, 3:32 am

Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am
...
Can you prove any of that? [Aside from there being no such thing as 'nostalgia goggles'. That term is often used by those who don't seem to understand the point of contention or the appreciation being expressed; or what's lamented for the lack of it in recent titles. A perfect example for this is the Fallout series. Many toss around the term 'nostalgia goggles' at posters upset by the disappointing Bethesda titles, but few of those would actually try to understand why the games were considered a disappointment; being content to just call it nostalgia ~(because nothing else makes sense to them... FO3 is realtime, 3D*, and first person...de facto improvement —duh). :( [No]
*Sadly, some people can make no distinction between 3D and First Person; though they are not the same thing, and one does not imply the other.

Fallout was envisioned as being PnP gaming on the PC; with also the intention that one must live with the consequences of one's actions.

Image

Yet FO3 discarded all semblance of the expected PnP style presentation, and the turn based gameplay, and any notion of living with consequences. While FO3 does have its own merits, it otherwise drops the torch [of the series' precepts, and intent] in almost every conceivable way that could matter... And Bethesda backstabs any series fan not expecting TES made from the cherry picked trappings of Fallout. It was a hellish disappointment; and FO4 seems to be more so. It's not nostalgia to lament when something has become fundamentally unrelated and unsuitable. It's not an improvement when it's a freakish mutation that contradicts the original purpose.

Image

FO3 may have been good on its own, but it didn't fit the style of the series, and was a detrimental addition to the set. Like a later artist finishing up a triptych panel using a style that doesn't match the other two.


"Nostalgia Goggles" (for video games) implies a remembrance of older titles as being better [than they were, or than recent titles] —I want to say even if they weren't, but use of the term itself has the connotation that those accusing with it think it's as a self-evident truth—hands down [with no acceptance of the contrary possible], because they either cannot or do not appreciate it themselves, nor do they miss what's no longer respected by the developers or their [recent] majority fanbase. So instead they attempt to marginalize the dissenters with labels [like 'hardcore'] while avoiding the original issues.

In this case the issue is save-scumming ; [to switch gears away from Fallout]. I cannot remember many older games that aggressively tried to prevent it. A.D.O.M. does come first to mind. It only let you save by quitting, and it would inspect its save games for tampering. I know of one game that imposed a delay between reloads... as in no reload because it hasn't been twenty minutes yet. Diablo only let you save when you quit. There is no nostalgia here; what would be the point? Modern games don't often entertain the concept... much less need comparing save-schemes with older titles. The point was made that having the ability to baby-step the game can potentially influence the way the rest of the game gets designed; mechanics and content. This could potentially affect everyone's single player experience.

** I'd like to know if BT4 & WL2 will let the player save during combat, or just prior to skill checks; or during a puzzle (if any).

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2770
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by paultakeda » May 3rd, 2017, 7:36 am

Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 3:32 am
Yet FO3 discarded all semblance of the expected PnP style presentation, and the turn based gameplay, and any notion of living with consequences. While FO3 does have its own merits, it otherwise drops the torch [of the series' precepts, and intent] in almost every conceivable way that could matter...

[...]

FO3 may have been good on its own, but it didn't fit the style of the series, and was a detrimental addition to the set. Like a later artist finishing up a triptych panel using a style that doesn't match the other two.
It kept SPECIAL. It is still a Lone Survivor game. Much of Fallout is there; the change was a shift from turn-based isometric grid to realtime first-person/third-person-over-shoulder, but with VATS to bring in the targeting element of the series. I personally found it to be an improvement in many ways because the game kept to its roots yet managed a successful modernization. You could say that all that was really, truly lost was turn-based grid combat, but there was no way Fallout would remain successful as a AAA game with turn-based grid combat. This is where the nostalgia goggles come in for some folk, and let's face it, the demand is there but it is not AAA demand, so let's all be thankful for crowd-funding and the resurgence of turn-based grid games from small shops like inXile.

So no, FO3 doesn't complete a triptych with FO1 and FO2, but who would want that decades later? Game technology has moved on. Just look at the drastic changes made in the Wizardry series. Visually, you can't complete any sort of thematic art with that!
Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 3:32 am
The point was made that having the ability to baby-step the game can potentially influence the way the rest of the game gets designed; mechanics and content. This could potentially affect everyone's single player experience.

** I'd like to know if BT4 & WL2 will let the player save during combat, or just prior to skill checks; or during a puzzle (if any).
I can see some merit for save during combat, say if you were in a particularly tought battle that had phases in it (move a squad member up to a protected but high risk flanking position, save before attacking). I might even use it on such battles. I wouldn't weep over not being able to save during combat, though. My primary use for save anywhere tends to be with quest trees. I tend to play through the game completely once, but at some points like to replay a quest by making different choices, performing different actions. For complex quests, this often means several save points, each with at least two branches to explore. Sometimes, I might like the outcome of one of these branches and decide to continue playing the game on that branch.

Save anywhere lets me do that. It lets others maximize their loot gain. Still others have a myriad different uses for it. The point is it provides flexibility: one player's idea of "save scumming" is another player's idea of "playing the game". As long as the game is designed to without considering the save as an in-game difficulty challenge, everyone is covered except for those who simply cannot control their own urge to, in their mind, cheat. Now for them, a game designed around save anywhere then has the game mode we all get to call "ironman". That's fine as an option. I'll never use it, but hey, it's there for those who want an achievement or know enough about themselves to enforce a limiter.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6184
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Zombra » May 3rd, 2017, 8:47 am

paultakeda wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:33 pm
My position is that unlike "restricted saves", the "save anywhere" mechanic could exist outside of design as a convenience function.
My point is that save mechanics cannot exist outside the "challenging software entertainment product design". When I bought Wasteland 2, I bought the save system that came with it. The game and the save system are not and cannot be independent from one another, even if the devs say "Oh, we didn't really think about it; we just designed the game and then let the players do whatever with their saves." The devs' decision to be irresponsible about the design (or, more likely, their neglect to consider its impact in the first place) doesn't make it unimportant.
Drool wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm
I'm currently playing Murdered: Soul Suspect. It uses checkpoint saving and has absolutely no manual saves at all. I get why they did it, but it has its drawbacks. Now, I don't mind if I have to restart a scene after getting rid of two out of three demons, but I really dislike the choice I'm left with when I want to quit playing. I'm left with either just quitting and replaying stuff, or continue playing until the game decides I'm allowed to quit.
That sounds awful. I think we all agree that, whatever the central system is, most games should have a "gotta pick up the kids" save-on-exit slot.
Drool wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm
I have a very hard time powering through a game that doesn't let me save when I need to stop playing, and I think it's just pointlessly hostile game design.
Completely agree.
Drool wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm
And, personally, I really hate "typewriter ribbon" style save tokens.
Note that I don't advocate a token system for every game. There is no one-size-fits all system that would be appropriate for every game. Did you play Resident Evil? It worked great there.
Drool wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:45 pm
I understand your desire to curb save scumming, but I would much prefer the game systems be adjusted to make it less desirable or useful. Like my idea before of reworking critical failures.
Agreed again. A design that doesn't scream to be scummed in the first place is highly preferable.
Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am
There is no way to prevent Save-Scumming in SP, any and all variation of save systems have been tested in the last few decades, and any game designer know each system pros/cons.
Um ... none of that is true. In fact that is all provably untrue.
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 7:36 am
One player's idea of "save scumming" is another player's idea of "playing the game".
This is a legitimate point of view ... games as a "toy box" filled with systems for the player to screw around with however he wants. I think this attitude is appropriate for some games, notably "open world" games such as Bethesda's RPGs, Grand Theft Auto, and whatnot. Personally, I don't view "classic style" RPGs in this way and in fact I think a "toy box" attitude is anathema to what is important about this genre. Some games can be "anything goes" and I have no problem with that, but some games should have a more focused intent, a tighter design that directs the player towards a particular experience. I believe that good RPGs fall into the latter category.
Image

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5127
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Crosmando » May 3rd, 2017, 9:03 am

I am currently playing DOOM and to be honest the lack of save anywhere really infuriates me and is a dampener on what is otherwise a very fun game. I managed to find a bunch of secrets but afterwards I died and the last checkpoint was quite a while before, and I wasn't able to find the secrets again. To be honest I cannot see any real benefit to restricting saves, it's just wasting the player's time for the sake of it.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3556
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Gizmo » May 3rd, 2017, 1:47 pm

Crosmando wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 9:03 am
I am currently playing DOOM and to be honest the lack of save anywhere really infuriates me and is a dampener on what is otherwise a very fun game.
And so I'm thinking... DOOM has save anywhere; but then I realize you must mean Bethesda's reboot. ;)
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 7:36 am
It kept SPECIAL. It is still a Lone Survivor game. Much of Fallout is there; the change was a shift from turn-based isometric grid to realtime first-person/third-person-over-shoulder, but with VATS to bring in the targeting element of the series.
I personally found it to be an improvement in many ways because the game kept to its roots yet managed a successful modernization.
:!: :?:

It kept the name 'SPECIAL', the system was tightly integrated into the mechanics, and those lost most of their significance; a shell of its former depth. VATS is a jest. No such thing existed in Fallout. It's there as a mock vestige to turn based gaming, but is in no way related or derived from it. Fallout had the option to carefully aim as a possible action in one's turn, but VATS simply stops the world and lets the player target one or more enemies with a cheat; a super attack for which the target gets no defense, and the likes of which they never get to dish out on the PC.
[There is no turn, because they never get one —it's all about being the player in the park.]
*And on top of it all, VATS gives the PC a 90% damage resistance during their attacks... Image

FO3 is polar opposite to the Fallout series at nearly every turn.

The only bits of Fallout that were kept were cherry picked bullet-point names from the IP, like "Bottle Caps—we have them too!", like "Power Armor—we have it too! (except ours is a tinsel costume)". What's missing is the priorities. They intentionally make the wrong turn on almost every stance. Where there was a game that placed value on committed choice, they created choices that didn't matter, and that could be reversed at a later time. Where the Fallout PC could become vilified for life, the FO3 PC was allowed to buy back their reputation with charity; like donating filthy water to the homeless. Where Fallout maintained a grave respect for nuclear weapons, Todd's tag-line for FO3 was "Violence is %$&@! funny" , and peppered the game with cheap nukes.

Setting-wise... The Fallout setting was the future they believed could happen, FO3's setting was a future obsessed with what already had; and at times was restricted to only that... [IE. the whole nonsense about if it didn't exist in the 50's—it can't be in Fallout.]
It's like they took the worst mistakes of Fallout 2, and adopted them as the core essence of the series.

Gameplay-wise... FPP encourages player agency. In FO3, the player personally aims the attacks; (they point the gun, and expect it to hit where they point). In Fallout 1, 2, and even Tactics, the character itself is responsible for hitting the intended target; (they attempt the attack with the best of their ability). They can succeed or fail by the competence of their own skills, and/or dumb luck —but the player could not influence this, except through previous character development. FO3 allows the player to influence the outcomes, often ignoring previous character development.

Conversation-wise the depth and interactivity suffered decline with FO3, and again sharply with FO4. You don't see conversations like those with the Lieutenant, the Master, Renesco, Set, or Lynette. Conversations that were both goldmine and mine field.
In FO3... [Intelligence] "So you fight the Good Fight with your voice..."
Dialog was not a battle the devs wanted to pick; and they said so themselves.
You could say that all that was really, truly lost was turn-based grid combat,
Heart & Soul :evil:
but there was no way Fallout would remain successful as a AAA game with turn-based grid combat.
Reason enough not to do the sequel. If one can't do it right, one shouldn't do it at all. WL2 is currently the best Fallout sequel on the market —and it isn't one.
So no, FO3 doesn't complete a triptych with FO1 and FO2, but who would want that decades later? Game technology has moved on.
Who would want the only thing expected of them in a Fallout sequel? Game tech is irrelevant. Each is option, and a means to an end. It is a fallacy to assume that turn based gaming is a lesser tech than Realtime FPS... Especially with RT/FPP came first. :lol:

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2770
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by paultakeda » May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm

Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 8:47 am
paultakeda wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 9:33 pm
My position is that unlike "restricted saves", the "save anywhere" mechanic could exist outside of design as a convenience function.
My point is that save mechanics cannot exist outside the "challenging software entertainment product design". When I bought Wasteland 2, I bought the save system that came with it. The game and the save system are not and cannot be independent from one another, even if the devs say "Oh, we didn't really think about it; we just designed the game and then let the players do whatever with their saves." The devs' decision to be irresponsible about the design (or, more likely, their neglect to consider its impact in the first place) doesn't make it unimportant.
The game and save system CAN be independent. I cited the NESticle emulator with its ability to save state on games previously designed without that function. Does it ruin the game? No, it is agnostic. One person's ruin is another person's boon. It is absolutely possible to use NESticle to play Super Mario Bros. without using the save function.

Therefore, if I understand your meaning, you are stating that the devs, by not considering the impact of save anywhere, will create a game that is badly designed.
Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 8:47 am
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 7:36 am
One player's idea of "save scumming" is another player's idea of "playing the game".
This is a legitimate point of view ... games as a "toy box" filled with systems for the player to screw around with however he wants. I think this attitude is appropriate for some games, notably "open world" games such as Bethesda's RPGs, Grand Theft Auto, and whatnot. Personally, I don't view "classic style" RPGs in this way and in fact I think a "toy box" attitude is anathema to what is important about this genre. Some games can be "anything goes" and I have no problem with that, but some games should have a more focused intent, a tighter design that directs the player towards a particular experience. I believe that good RPGs fall into the latter category.
This just goes against my personal view that the save function is a convenience feature and should never be considered part of game design. Since I take this position, your distinctions mean nothing to me. I get what you are trying to say regarding player experience, but since I regard save anywhere as allowing for a customized experience in a gradient from ironman to scumming all the way through as chosen by the player, it just doesn't apply.
Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:47 pm
It's like they took the worst mistakes of Fallout 2, and adopted them as the core essence of the series.
This is likely true. It's also likely true that Van Buren was learning the same thing and you would eventually end up with what we got in Fallout 3. We'll just leave it like this: I thought Fallout 3 was a nice resurrection. I didn't need it to be called Fallout 3, so I was very happy to see the next one be called Fallout: New Vegas, and equally disappointed when they went back to the numbering in Fallout 4. I've also said previously that I would welcome a AAA Wasteland: Lone Ranger RPG/FPS.
Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:47 pm
So no, FO3 doesn't complete a triptych with FO1 and FO2, but who would want that decades later? Game technology has moved on.
Who would want the only thing expected of them in a Fallout sequel? Game tech is irrelevant. Each is option, and a means to an end. It is a fallacy to assume that turn based gaming is a lesser tech than Realtime FPS... Especially with RT/FPP came first. :lol:
Of course it's a fallacy. But it is undeniable that a turn based isometric RPG would sell less units than a realtime FPS with RPG elements. And game tech is very relevant. Old games, were they made today, would not be made the same way. There are a lot of things that the designers would love to do had they the technology to do it.

What actually annoys me more is that WL2 and WL3 are turn-based when it should be phase-based. We can't have these forms of combat in AAA games, but WL2 and WL3 are not AAA games (that was the entire KS pitch), so losing phases to turns? That's the real tragedy here.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Remo » May 3rd, 2017, 2:22 pm

Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 3:32 am
...
Nostalgia Filter if you prefer. Mind you we are talking about save-scumming, so lets avoid winded rants on tangent, some of us played the originals fallout series at release and doesn't wish to regurgitate old arguments we heard ( and made ) many times before.
Grohal wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:48 am
Well, I spend most of my freetime on games - but not because I want to prove something (what and to whom?), but because I enjoy some games. Good RPGs and even more so good strategy games can easily eat hundreds of hours for me. :mrgreen:
I didn't said you do. Merely referring to younger and more impressionable me, who spent countless hours to prove to myself that I can master all the game mechanics and ferret out all its secrets. While older me, who has experienced many many games, often enjoy different aspects of games, finding thing like playing on highest setting + ironman mode as as pointless tedious repetitive grind that waste my precious time on trivial BS.
Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 8:47 am
Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 1:52 am
There is no way to prevent Save-Scumming in SP, any and all variation of save systems have been tested in the last few decades, and any game designer know each system pros/cons.
Um ... none of that is true. In fact that is all provably untrue.
Ok, so how do you prevent Save-Scumming in SP? ( except making game that no one care enough to find away around it) because I have yet to see a single game that succeed in anything but creating needless aggravation for its player base.. (niche game not included)

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3556
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Gizmo » May 3rd, 2017, 2:47 pm

Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:22 pm
(niche game not included)
That's quite an out.

Niche games are the ones that don't have to target the whole world at once, and can afford to be strict.
Nostalgia Filter if you prefer.
It's still not the case. Nostalgia Filter is thinking how utterly cool the original Equalizer, and/or Manimal TV shows were... until you go back and try to watch them. (And perhaps even after :lol:)

With games it can be that the earlier game offers aspects of play that the later games simply do not, and so it's a win by default, for no actual competition; where just showing up gives the prize —no matter how poor the effort.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6184
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Zombra » May 3rd, 2017, 3:58 pm

paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 8:47 am
My point is that save mechanics cannot exist outside the "challenging software entertainment product design".
The game and save system CAN be independent. I cited the NESticle emulator with its ability to save state on games previously designed without that function. Does it ruin the game? No, it is agnostic. One person's ruin is another person's boon. It is absolutely possible to use NESticle to play Super Mario Bros. without using the save function.
And I apologize for not addressing that example earlier, as it is a very cogent one. I don't have a problem with emulator save states, but "therefore save anywhere is always fine!" would be a very simplistic (and mistaken) takeaway. The situation with old NES games is very different now than it was 30 years ago. Most of those games would probably have benefited from a more lenient save system in the first place ... and old games are generally dated, cumbersome, and annoying to play today, and would be intolerable without the newly added ability to play them in shorter bites.
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
Therefore, if I understand your meaning, you are stating that the devs, by not considering the impact of save anywhere, will create a game that is badly designed.
Yes. Best case, the save system and the game systems will work well together purely by accident. "Let the player do whatever they want and hope it works out" is bad design. In fact it can hardly be called "design" at all.
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
This just goes against my personal view that the save function is a convenience feature and should never be considered part of game design. Since I take this position, your distinctions mean nothing to me.
Yep. This is where we fundamentally disagree. I want a "game" (coherent challenging software entertainment product package) to have systems that all work together to produce a challenging and entertaining experience for the player (me). You apparently feel that some systems do not (and cannot) impact others, and do not even influence player behavior! To me this is lunacy.
Remo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:22 pm
Ok, so how do you prevent Save-Scumming in SP?
Roguelike mechanics. Rolling autosave mechanics. Ironman mechanics. "Fail forward" mechanics. Consumable save mechanics. Checkpoint mechanics. Pretty much any kind of mechanics that don't rely on the common hardsave/quicksave system so many are so used to. There are lots of them.
Image

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3556
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Gizmo » May 3rd, 2017, 4:38 pm

Emulated save-states, and an Ironman mode with restricted saves don't come with the same issue as unrestricted saves. Ironman imposes the restriction as a kind of afterthought tacked on to a completed game. Emulator saved-states likewise are an after the fact feature [not considered in the game's initial & final design]. But being able to save the game before pickpocket, lockpicking, or dialog attempts does essentially strip the events of their risks, and devalues their rewards. [Emulated save states can do the same; and worse... in those the RAM contents can be tampered with]. Plus it exists as they are crafting the game-world, its population, and its quests. Which means that is could be on the designer's mind... when they scrap an idea.
__
I would be fine with just a save upon quit option; perhaps [deviously... with unskippable intro scenes —if reloaded within 10 minutes :twisted:], but that's not a requirement.

Autosave —especially single autosave, is generally bad. Any glitch with the action could lose hours, even days worth of progress.

**I've even seen it suggested that ToEE should not be played in Ironman mode due to buggy saves. (Though I did, and didn't have a problem.)


I'm reminded of a company (that shall remain nameless), who backed up their data for nearly a decade... and in that time, no one actually checked the data that was backed up... Their procedure was wrong, and they weren't backing up anything. :shock:

@Zombra What are your thoughts on a Quick-Save feature that costs XP to use?

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Remo » May 3rd, 2017, 5:55 pm

I say again, there is no way to prevent those who wish to abuse the game (save-system or otherwise) from doing so in SP. Things like IronMan mode are mostly cosmetic and can be subverted in seconds (although some methods take considerable dev time to implement and balance). While punishing saving mechanics might help few with self-control issues, mostly it is the cause of much aggravation among wider player base ( because it is still preferable todo so to see one minor dialogue branch, than wasting 100 hours on meta play-through that is 95% the same ) and has no place outside of game that are specifically designed for that like that souls game. ( which now days I auto avoid )

Anyway, how you define nostalgia googles doesn't matter, as long as you understand what I meant, that there is vocal group that seem to think that we can make RPGs great again by ramping up the DIFFICULTY and fighting save-scammers. On this we would have to agree to disagree.( that not to say that there are something that I believe mainstream game ruined, so please no need straws here )

Anyway, have fun guys, debating the heretic save-scammers.
Last edited by Remo on May 3rd, 2017, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6184
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Zombra » May 3rd, 2017, 6:09 pm

Gizmo wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 4:38 pm
@Zombra What are your thoughts on a Quick-Save feature that costs XP to use?
I love the idea. I am also certain that the "other side" would find it completely unacceptable. :P
Image

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2770
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by paultakeda » May 3rd, 2017, 7:05 pm

Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 3:58 pm
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
Therefore, if I understand your meaning, you are stating that the devs, by not considering the impact of save anywhere, will create a game that is badly designed.
Yes. Best case, the save system and the game systems will work well together purely by accident. "Let the player do whatever they want and hope it works out" is bad design. In fact it can hardly be called "design" at all.
It's not by accident because I don't agree that it is a game design function. So for me, it's "let the player do whatver they want" and that's it.
Zombra wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 3:58 pm
paultakeda wrote:
May 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
This just goes against my personal view that the save function is a convenience feature and should never be considered part of game design. Since I take this position, your distinctions mean nothing to me.
Yep. This is where we fundamentally disagree. I want a "game" (coherent challenging software entertainment product package) to have systems that all work together to produce a challenging and entertaining experience for the player (me). You apparently feel that some systems do not (and cannot) impact others, and do not even influence player behavior! To me this is lunacy.
No, no, quite the opposite. I am saying that the game as designed can function quite happily with save anywhere provided the basis for happy is contingent on player behavior aligning with player desire. If a player wants to save scum, they can save scum. If a player wants to ironman, they can ironman. If a player can't help but save scum, then they aren't happy but that is not the fault of the game design or the save function. A game will function fine with either and anywhere across that spectrum if it regards the save as an outside convenience feature. What that feature does do is influence player behavior and provides choice, whereas limited saves restrict player behavior.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5788
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

Post by Woolfe » May 3rd, 2017, 8:07 pm

Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 5:04 pm
People who want to hack a game to make it behave however they want? Fine with me. That doesn't mean that building a game ground up to give the player everything on a platter is a good idea.
False equivalency. I am not suggesting giving them everything on a platter. This is a single part that has a REAL effect outside of the ability to "cheat" that being to SAVE THE BLOODY GAME! :shock: :roll: :lol:
I'm not drawing an equivalency of any kind :? I'm saying that it is not always in the player's best interest to let him choose moment to moment the outcome of every situation.
Who cares. If they want to abuse the system to allow them to get the "best" result, fuck em. It doesn't affect YOU in any way.
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
Sigh... The only reason it affects your gameplay is because you choose to let it, lets face it you choose to cheat because the ability is there.
No, but even assuming that's true, unfettered choice in games - excuse me, in challenging entertainment software packages - is not a good thing! You wouldn't put in "press K to instantly kill every monster on the screen" or "press space bar to advance a character level" and expect it to be well received. Yet unlimited quicksaving at any time is just as heavy handed and disastrous to challenge as these examples.
There is that False equivalency again... this isn't about unfettered choice. So these examples are meaningless.
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
I want you to have an Ironman mode, so that you can experience the game as you wish.
I don't want an ironman mode. True ironman in a traditional RPG is madness, an extreme challenge for veterans who know the mechanics and challenges inside and out. What I really want are mechanics that don't make save scumming profitable or desirable in the first place. The way containers were handled in W2 for example screamed to be save scummed. On the other hand saving wasn't allowed mid-combat and nobody is complaining about it. It worked just fine. (Seriously, did you have a problem with it?) I want the whole game to work just fine and not scream to be save scummed.
Why? Why is it such an issue for you?
No I had no issue with the save being missing from combat. Because if I needed to I could just refight the whole combat, which I did a couple of times (most pointedly trying to keep the damn goat alive), I get what you are saying, you want to make it so that Joe blogs can't save reload until he gets a positive result on some test or other.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter. First in that if it is important enough, Joe blogs will find a way, second in that if Joe blogs wants to cheat then who cares.
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
Now how about you return the favour, I don't reload all the time, but I do sometimes. Sometimes I don't feel like losing a particular character(That damn goat), or I misread something and click the wrong answer, or I accidentally hit a wrong button. Or I don't want to go back and replay the whole first chunk of a game with a new party, or, or, or, or, or, or, or.... ETC.
I get that there are good reasons to want to save the game. I'd like to see some understanding on the other side that there are good reasons to limit player behavior.
I understand, I just don't agree.
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
I want Save almost anywhere, with the option for an IRONMAN mode.
Curious ... what do you mean "almost anywhere"?
WL2 had almost anywhere... hence almost anywhere. If it was anywhere, I wouldn't care either.
Zombra wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 8:11 pm
Woolfe wrote:
May 2nd, 2017, 7:39 pm
Seriously if you target the game at a difficulty based on the LEVEL of your Team, then add the save modes afterwards, then how does that not achieve what we both want?
If the save modes are thoughtful and complement the game design well without rewarding boring behavior, I'm all for it.
Shrug. Why does it matter if a player is playing using boring behaviour? So long as it doesn't affect your game why do you care?
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest