Computer games and the save checkpoint system

[Bohandas]

I despise when a game has any limitations on saving. Checkpoints are a bother, and so is being unable to save to a new file in the middle of a run, and so is havin a limited number of save slots. Why do so many modern games have a fixed number of save slots as if they were running on a cartridge with limited space?

And I won't even play games with permadeath. I even have my Steam account set up to never show me games with that tag.

I think the ideal solution to both the checkpoint thing and the permadeath thing would be to run the game in some kind of sandboxed system where you can capture a save state of the whole thing, akin to running the game in an emulator. But I don't have the technical knowhow to set such a system up (does anyone here have any advice on how I fould achieve this?).

On the other hand, being forced to play through an entire section at once is one of the things that makes it a game. It's supposed to be a challenge, not a movie. Part of that challenge is completing the sections as prescribed.

Does it really add challenge though? The way I see it it only adds repetition. The same goes for permadeath as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My own feeling is that for most games I don't trust the bug-control enough to be willing to tolerate losing too much time because a game doesn't want me to save often, and is capable of crashing or hanging at any point (even if its not constant; even once is too many).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does it really add challenge though? The way I see it it only adds repetition.

Yes.

Flatly yes.

It is harder to do a thing right if you have to do succeed at challenges continually for say three minutes, than it is if you can just keep save/loading as you succeed at small parts of it. The fact that games where you can save/load at any time get trivialized by the fact unless there are other limitations should make this pretty obvious.

Take Elden Ring for example - you wouldn't even have to learn how to actually play through some of the bosses, particularly the more complex multi-stage ones if you could just save every time you got into a good position (even if you got destroyed 15 seconds later) and keep reloading from that good position until you managed to luck-not-skill your way through things (which possible in a huge number of games).

The same is very true in strategy games, particularly those where the enemy AI is seeded, because you then know what it's going to do). It's pretty easy to trivialize XCOM with aggressive use of save/load.

If you only have Save & Quit, or save at/load from the beginning of missions the game is drastically more challenging, and actually you end up using different strategies, even.

Being able to save/load whenever is also part of (but not all of) why a lot of games end up with consumables being entirely pointless.

My own feeling is that for most games I don't trust the bug-control enough to be willing to tolerate losing too much time because a game doesn't want me to save often, and is capable of crashing or hanging at any point (even if its not constant; even once is too many).

There are very few games which are this buggy these days. I get that if you played a ton before like, 2015 (a decade ago now!), this was much more common then, but honestly, it is extremely rare for a game to actually crash/hang these days, unless you're running a pretty risky overclocked setup, or have other external issues (like very "dirty" power - but that can be fixed - and should be for the health of your PC/console, with the right power thingy).

Also, checkpoints are why you usually lose only a few minutes of gameplay.

If you're using save/load, and the game has infrequent or weirdly-triggered autosaves, it's much easier to lose double-digit minutes of play or even hours. I lost over an hour (more than once, too!) on a game that let you save/load anywhere (I forget which) last year because it didn't have a timered autosave at all, and only a triggered one with rare triggers.

It's still a good reason not to play Hardcore/Ironman mode in a lot of games though, even ones that do let you "save anywhere", because a lot more games have bugs that will mess you up enough to get you killed occasionally than ones which will.

As I said, I do think it's pretty important to let the player do save & quit at any time unless the game is very action-y (i.e. racing sim or fighting game), but that's pretty different to save/load wherever whenever.

That is what pretty much everyone in the thread has been referring to - the ability to save at any time to resume later without losing progress. You're the first to reference savescumming.

I don't think that's quite correct, based on the posts I'm seeing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are very few games which are this buggy these days. I get that if you played a ton before like, 2015 (a decade ago now!), this was much more common then, but honestly, it is extremely rare for a game to actually crash/hang these days, unless you're running a pretty risky overclocked setup, or have other external issues (like very "dirty" power - but that can be fixed - and should be for the health of your PC/console, with the right power thingy).

It doesn't have to be frequent, though your point that I'm mostly talking about moderately older games here is not incorrect. It doesn't have to be a freeze per se, though; a lot of times these are things like block progression in mission based games (or in a few cases known issues that are just dumb design choices in otherwise good games). Though to be dead honest, it doesn't even have to be a game problem per se; if I get a whole mission punted because of a misclick, I'm not going to feel obliged to eat that.

I don't usually use autosaves, but I at least insist on being able to save at the start of a mission.

It's still a good reason not to play Hardcore/Ironman mode in a lot of games though, even ones that do let you "save anywhere", because a lot more games have bugs that will mess you up enough to get you killed occasionally than ones which will.

This is primarily what I'm talking about.

As I said, I do think it's pretty important to let the player do save & quit at any time unless the game is very action-y (i.e. racing sim or fighting game), but that's pretty different to save/load wherever whenever.

Since I'm primarily a TB guy, its not an issue for me.

I don't think that's quite correct, based on the posts I'm seeing.

Well, its not not an issue, but I don't play enough of that kind of game for it to be a big issue.

 

[Retros_x]

Just a friendly reminder that having always save and quit possible is also depending on the game quite a technological challenge. Allowing players to save at any time means the save system must account for every possible scenario, including enemy positions, ongoing events, environmental changes, and complex interactions. Which means quite plenty of more potential bugs and thus developing and testing effort to eliminate them. Especially in an action heavy game with a lot of going on, potentially destructible environments etc. it is much easier to have a checkpoint in a hallway between setpieces where you only have to save inventory and game stats like health etc.

Of course there are also design perspectives considered. Some game designers don't want to to be able to "pause the movie" in the middle of a tense action sequence because it ruins the scene. In general this applies more to games where players have less control and the more they are controlled by the direction and flow of the game. In games that are heavily controlled by the player (CRPG, Strategie games etc.) I would also not want checkpoints, but in Action/Adventure games like RDR2 I don't really mind them.

In general in most modern games I rarely loose more than a few minutes by a checkpoint, so I don't understand the fuzz anyway.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Just a friendly reminder that having always save and quit possible is also depending on the game quite a technological challenge. Allowing players to save at any time means the save system must account for every possible scenario, including enemy positions, ongoing events, environmental changes, and complex interactions. Which means quite plenty of more potential bugs and thus developing and testing effort to eliminate them. Especially in an action heavy game with a lot of going on, potentially destructible environments etc. it is much easier to have a checkpoint in a hallway between setpieces where you only have to save inventory and game stats like health etc.

Of course there are also design perspectives considered. Some game designers don't want to to be able to "pause the movie" in the middle of a tense action sequence because it ruins the scene. In general this applies more to games where players have less control and the more they are controlled by the direction and flow of the game. In games that are heavily controlled by the player (CRPG, Strategie games etc.) I would also not want checkpoints, but in Action/Adventure games like RDR2 I don't really mind them.

In general in most modern games I rarely loose more than a few minutes by a checkpoint, so I don't understand the fuzz anyway.

Former software architect here. Capturing a snapshot of the current state of a system really isn't much of a technical challenge, especially if you're not allowing saves during points of particular environmental complexity, like the middle of a non-turn based combat. Recall also that most games don't have a checkpoint save system. This is a non-issue honestly.

Your second point I agree with... to a point. Whether a scene is 'ruined' by being allowed to save and restart later is not for the designer to decide, it's for the person actually playing the game. I get for certain types of games the designers are trying to enforce a certain level of challenge or mood. In fact, I mentioned this in my original post. It's an unnecessary annoyance to me though, and I think to others as well. I think save checkpoints could and maybe should be a difficulty setting. Or if you, as a user, really want the experience... just don't save!

 

[Retros_x]

especially if you're not allowing saves during points of particular environmental complexity, like the middle of a non-turn based combat.

I mean that was exact the problem OP was having with RDR2. They were in the middle of a mission.

Did you worked as SA for games too? Because games are quite different in a lot of ways from business software systems (there I would agree with you saving the state of a business software system is often not that difficult).

Whether a scene is 'ruined' by being allowed to save and restart later is not for the designer to decide, it's for the person actually playing the game.

Yeah, thats not how game designers think. They aim for specific goals, sure the player will see if it reaches the goal, but if the designers doesnt aim for it at all - its not design.

And again - we are talking about maximum a few minutes. The times with losing dozens of minutes or even hours of game time due to a bad checkpoint are mostly over. Most games don't do that anymore.

 

[MarkB]

I mean that was exact the problem OP was having with RDR2. They were in the middle of a mission.

He is the OP. And "the middle of a mission" is not the same as "the middle of combat".

 

[cranberry]

Real life happens, even when you're in the middle of a game.

Not being able to save when you want is a deal breaker for me.

And if you're playing a single player game with no leaderboard or external rating system what is the problem with saving and reloading?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And if you're playing a single player game with no leaderboard or external rating system what is the problem with saving and reloading?

Two key problems:

1) Allowing players to save/reload at literally any second isn't trivial in all kinds of game. There are plenty of games that do it, but they tend to share certain features and approaches, and you may have to make compromises to make it possible.

2) It destroys appreciation of actual good game design and difficulty, and people tend to just blast through games where they can savescum, often without actually enjoying them or engaging with them in the same way they would have if you say, couldn't save in combat. Honestly the demand that savescumming be possible is part of why Immersive Sims have fallen out of favour.

It's notable, too, that if anything, the market seems to be moving away from the save/reload at any second concept - games which use different systems are increasingly popular, because, I would suggest the gameplay feels a lot better in most games where you can't do that. Hell, I'd go as far as to say the gameplay tends to be better designed in games where you can't do that.

Whether a scene is 'ruined' by being allowed to save and restart later is not for the designer to decide, it's for the person actually playing the game.

No. Flatly no.

That's absolutely for the game designer to decide. That's literally their job! They need to exercise good judgement about it, sure, but it is their job.

I get for certain types of games the designers are trying to enforce a certain level of challenge or mood. In fact, I mentioned this in my original post. It's an unnecessary annoyance to me though, and I think to others as well. I think save checkpoints could and maybe should be a difficulty setting. Or if you, as a user, really want the experience... just don't save!

No.

Games are art. The designers absolutely get to design them how they like. If they want the player to engage with the gameplay, rather savescumming through it, that's a completely legitimate design choice.

You say "unnecessary annoyance", but in what possible way? In that it prevents from cheesing the game and forces you to actually play it? Most checkpoint-based games either let you you save and quit anywhere, or only have checkpoints which are less than 3 minutes apart, so you can't lose much time.

(The GTA/RDR games a bit worse for this for sure, but they're the exception, not the rule.)

Also you seem to think every game can easily do save/reload, but that's not the case. You have to design a game in a specific way to allow for that.