Computer games and the save checkpoint system

[Piperken]

Not optimized game/many bugs + few save checkpoints & no save game option = my most frequent or unpleasant experience with video games.

As a general feature, I sometimes like save checkpoints, or save anywhere more; sometimes what the game happens to be influences this feeling.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not optimized game/many bugs + few save checkpoints & no save game option = my most frequent or unpleasant experience with video games.

Yeah that's definitely the "worst of all worlds" - fortunately it's pretty rare now outside of games in Early Access. 10+ years ago though it was pretty common.

As a general feature, I sometimes like save checkpoints, or save anywhere more; sometimes what the game happens to be influences this feeling.

Same. Different games and different gameplay designs call for different approaches. If there's a mismatch, then you have a problem. Like, if you could save/reload at any time, even in combat, in Elden Ring, half the fight designs wouldn't make sense. But equally, I don't think a game as weird, complex and odd as Skyrim would work well without save/reload.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yet, somehow any number of modern games do so. That doesn't tell me that's a prohibitive case, at least with turn based games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

To be really blunt, I don't care how much the designer wants a game to be played a particular way; it how they've mandated saving be done annoys me, I'm just not going to play it. With single player games that sort of mandate simply strikes me as an arrogant decision that I don't think they should be making; at the very least they should make it clear when advertising the game so I can save my money.

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.

Its possible that modern versions of this are less annoying, but I'll note that certainly isn't a requirement, as the old RE games showed.

 

[cranberry]

To be really blunt, I don't care how much the designer wants a game to be played a particular way; it how they've mandated saving be done annoys me, I'm just not going to play it. With single player games that sort of mandate simply strikes me as an arrogant decision that I don't think they should be making; at the very least they should make it clear when advertising the game so I can save my money.

I think a lot of this arrogance is fed by the fan boys over the past 20 years. For some reason, in their minds, any decision the developer makes is the right one, as if they are infallible gods. And even polite constructive criticism or disagreement is met with flaming and venom.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a lot of this arrogance is fed by the fan boys over the past 20 years. For some reason, in their minds, any decision the developer makes is the right one, as if they are infallible gods. And even polite constructive criticism or disagreement is met with flaming and venom.

There's an argument toward designing a game with a particular intent in how its to be played. I'm quite on board the base state involving a particular way the saves are to be handled (even if that way is the typical Iron Man approach which I think requires a lot more care than virtually any computer game other than some large scale strategy games I've ever played seems to have in avoiding bugs).

But if they insist on that way, they can stuff it. I've bought the damn thing, I'm not going to harm anyone because I don't want to deal with your particular, annoying save scheme, so don't try to sell it to me blind.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

With single player games that sort of mandate simply strikes me as an arrogant decision that I don't think they should be making; at the very least they should make it clear when advertising the game so I can save my money.

If you want to argue that, it's much easier to argue that the arrogance is on your side, so are you sure that's the approach you wish to take? Games are art, they're not just "tools" or "products".

Especially good games.

As for in the advertising, what is it you want, exactly? Literally every single game's save system is trivially possible to find out by Googling it.

You keep saying this is so important to you, but you won't spend 10 seconds Googling before you buy a game? Hell, if you buy on Steam, you can just refund them as soon as you find out the save system isn't for you (which is going to be within the first two hours), no questions asked. So you don't even have to check with Steam!

Its possible that modern versions of this are less annoying, but I'll note that certainly isn't a requirement, as the old RE games showed.

LOL judging by Resident Evil is like assuming all bicycles are this, and saying bicycles are rubbish as result.

Resident Evil is a weird-as-hell game with an intentionally contrived and weird save system that is there because that's part of what makes RE fans like the games! And from RE4 onwards, so TWENTY YEARS AGO, RE games have had a checkpoint-style autosave system ON TOP of the typewriter system. Have you even played an RE game in the two decades?

so don't try to sell it to me blind

No-one is doing that!

You are choosing to go in blind instead of spending 10 seconds Googling!

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Hard agree! Savepoint is an abyssmal legacy from old Nintendo style gaming that has no place in the modern world - unless one for some reason play Nintendo style arcade games where savepoint are a part of the genre.

I personally only play crpgs, and the odd open world and Elite style sci fi game. But like the op, if there are no free saving, I don’t play it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you want to argue that, it's much easier to argue that the arrogance is on your side, so are you sure that's the approach you wish to take? Games are art, they're not just "tools" or "products".

The moment they want me to buy them, they sure as hell are.

Especially good games.

As for in the advertising, what is it you want, exactly? Literally every single game's save system is trivially possible to find out by Googling it.

Its not like save point is such a common thing I would expect it before I stumbled into it.

You keep saying this is so important to you, but you won't spend 10 seconds Googling before you buy a game? Hell, if you buy on Steam, you can just refund them as soon as you find out the save system isn't for you (which is going to be within the first two hours), no questions asked. So you don't even have to check with Steam!

I don't buy from Steam, or any place with a mandatory launcher.

LOL judging by Resident Evil is like assuming all bicycles are this, and saying bicycles are rubbish as result.

View attachment 403419

Resident Evil is a weird-as-hell game with an intentionally contrived and weird save system that is there because that's part of what makes RE fans like the games! And from RE4 onwards, so TWENTY YEARS AGO, RE games have had a checkpoint-style autosave system ON TOP of the typewriter system. Have you even played an RE game in the two decades?


No-one is doing that!

Then its a non-issue. But since those were the only games I ever played with save points...

 

[Retros_x]

Yet, somehow any number of modern games do so. That doesn't tell me that's a prohibitive case, at least with turn based games.

Yet, somehow any number of modern games do not so. Thats not a proof for anything. If its not a technological challenge - why would not every game do so? And yes with turn based games its easier for the reasons I stated.

I also never said its a prohibitive case. Just that its more difficult and thus costs more resources in development. Time and money that could spent elsewhere.

Also if checkpoint system is done well - it delivers a benefit for players. Its just more convenient. I am currently replaying The Last of Us Part 1 & 2 and the checkpoint system is done so well, I never use the manual save. The checkpoints are at the perfect spots and even in the middle of encounters when for example reinforcements arrive or a big baddie went down but there are still some enemies left. You CAN save manually, but I never felt the urge to do so. Whenever I might want to save I open the menu and see down there a text: "Last checkpoint X minutess ago" and very often it says "less than 1 Minute ago".