Computer games and the save checkpoint system

[Thomas Shey]

I think you maybe confused re: the point being made. People aren't saying it's always a "processor overhead" or that it's impossibly technically hard (though it does require resources which could be devoted to other things in both cases - hardware and development) or something. They're saying it requires you to design the game in a specific way, and a lot of games aren't designed that way because it's not, like, beneficial to them. With turn-based games, it's usually trivial to implement it (not always, but usually), esp. as the game probably autosaves every turn anyway. So if it's not present, it'd be an intentional design decision to specifically stop that. Some turn-based games attempt to save-scumming another way, which is to use a numerical "seed" for each turn, so if you do the same things in the same order, the same exact things will happen. Sid Meier (I think - maybe another Firaxis guy) explained that this was to prevent players driving themselves mad by trying to reload and hoping the numbers came up different next time (instead using different tactics will mean a different result even with the same seed).

I've played some like that. Since usually reloading there was to bypass bugs or misclicks, I didn't care much about fixed results.

It also means that mechanisms which bring the PC back to life or similar (i.e. respawning) kind of clash with it - and entire genres of game rely on that mechanism (but I am now understanding you play specific narrow range of games so may not have come across this). The original BioShock 1 was always a bit weird and messy because they put in both save/reload at any time, and a mechanism which can bring the PC back to life if they die, and it's like, pick a lane, because in reality the latter mechanism basically never got used by most players - they just reloaded.

I may have implied it was more narrow than it was (see my other post for elaboration), but I'll freely admit my forays into realtime games have been limited (deliberately; I'm usually terrible at them), and just the fact I don't do console games might have some impact, too.

BioShock Infinite (BioShock 3) also features the most annoying possible save mechanism (that I can think of, beyond "no saves at all in a several hour+ game" or "checkpoints 15+ minutes apart" - certainly more annoying even than typewriter ribbons!) - pure triggered (not timed/regular!) autosaves only (no manual saves at all, at least on release) AND no save on exit!

I'm hard-pressed to understand what purpose no-save-on-exit is supposed to serve, and it definitely would have made me say "No thanks."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm hard-pressed to understand what purpose no-save-on-exit is supposed to serve, and it definitely would have made me say "No thanks."

Yeah and in that era (2014) it wasn't as trivial to find that out either, because few if any reviewers mentioned it, and most forums where people would have complained about it were very poorly indexed (if at all) by Google.

I have no idea what the purpose of no-save-on-exit was. It's bizarre. I'd have thought it was a technical limitation, except they later on patched in a game mode called "1999 mode" which did allow you to do the usual save/reload shenanigans. Maybe they just didn't develop that in time for release even though they later made it possible? Weird.

(Note Google AI claims you can create a save by exiting, but this is explicitly contradicted by countless people at the time (who literally describe in detail how they have to trigger autosaves) so either they patched that in later, or more likely AI is just making something up it thinks sounds right.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah and in that era (2014) it wasn't as trivial to find that out either, because few if any reviewers mentioned it, and most forums where people would have complained about it were very poorly indexed (if at all) by Google.

I'd have thought there was enough public bitching about it it'd still have become well known pretty fast, but then, I didn't hang out on computer game focused fora or mailing lists, so maybe I'm on crack.

I have no idea what the purpose of no-save-on-exit was. It's bizarre. I'd have thought it was a technical limitation, except they later on patched in a game mode called "1999 mode" which did allow you to do the usual save/reload shenanigans. Maybe they just didn't develop that in time for release even though they later made it possible? Weird.

(Note Google AI claims you can create a save by exiting, but this is explicitly contradicted by countless people at the time (who literally describe in detail how they have to trigger autosaves) so either they patched that in later, or more likely AI is just making something up it thinks sounds right.)

Never underestimate the other AI problem where it found a couple places on the Web where someone said it did, and it just took it as gospel.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

You state further below that you only play one genre. Maybe it has a place in other genres?

This is a wierd case of cherry picking. I did also state further below that save points can be a part of genre convention, such as Nintendo style arcade games.

Now, if Nintendostyle arcade games has a place in the modern world is up for debate ;-)

 

[Bohandas]

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

The only thing I can think of is if people are allowed to freely save they'll see the endgame enough times to know that it doesnt have any content. That said, that's for the developer, not the player

 

[Bohandas]

Games are art. The designers absolutely get to design them how they like.

It's the duty of the seller to deliver a working finished product. They can make whatever stylistic or gameplay design decisions they want, but technical aspects such as saving, adjusting volume, resizing the screen, etc should be expected to be up to snuff and not rely on obsolete systems born of the memory limitations of the 1980's

 

[GrimCo]

Always hated checkpoint save system that was mostly console thing for a long time, primarily due to hardware limitations. Dying near the end of the mission and then redoing it from last checkpoint 10-15 minutes ago was just annoying as hell. Yes, i'm mostly pc gamer and have been for more than 30 years. I want to spam F5 quicksave as much as i can and have unlimited save slots. If i'm gonna cheese using qs/ql, it's my problem, not developers. Last decade or so, i pretty much only play single player FPS and RPG (and preferably turn based ones), with occasional TBS. Just give me option to save when i want. Auto saves are ok, if they are reasonably spaced ( so every 3-5 minutes max).

 

[Retros_x]

but technical aspects such as saving, adjusting volume, resizing the screen, etc should be expected to be up to snuff and not rely on obsolete systems born of the memory limitations of the 1980's

Its a bit silly to act like saving a full applications state is the same as adjusting volume and resizing screen. Also checkpoints and saves are not just technical aspect but have overlaps with game design as discussed above.

But in the end we all decide with our wallet. The pc hardcores in this thread refuse to buy games with checkpoints, the industry clearly doesn't care because as much as some here try to claim this as super easy to implement and always a win, they still use checkpoints a lot. So a) Most players and customers don't care as much and/or b) its not as easy to implement depending on genre and/or c) designers don't want it because its not just a technical aspect

People here who don't believe any of this is true please explain why you think games still have checkpoints if they supposedly annoy everyone, are easy to implement and have no impact on game design.

 

[Puddles]

I consider it a rite of passage for anyone my age (millennial) to have had FF7 paused mid-boss battle, between save points, while you eat quickly dinner to not annoy your mom.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's the duty of the seller to deliver a working finished product. They can make whatever stylistic or gameplay design decisions they want, but technical aspects such as saving, adjusting volume, resizing the screen, etc should be expected to be up to snuff and not rely on obsolete systems born of the memory limitations of the 1980's

So because you personally don't understand the difference between changing volume and saving the total game state at any point, game designers are in the wrong?

I mean, it's an opinion. It's a very "2025" opinion in that it dismisses experts (game designers in this case) and puts a lack of comprehension as supreme, but I don't think it's helpful to the discussion nor well-informed.

If nothing else, if you can't understand how saving games is more than a "technical" aspect, from this thread, then I don't know how to help you. There are technical elements, for sure, but there are also design choices which are fundamental to certain genres of game. Soulslike games, like Elden Ring, which has sold over 30m copies, rely on you not being able to save and reload for their fundamental gameplay, and would be no fun if you could (though ER and many others do let you save and quit).

As an aside, the Xbox Series X/S is the first console which can kind of do "save anywhere" with "all" (actually just most) games, because it totally pause and save the game state (with most single-player games), and that is a very recent development, and further, the PS5 can't do it, nor can PCs, because they don't have right hardware setup. Indeed it would be impossible to guarantee all PCs did have the right hardware setup. This should demonstrate to you how "non-trivial" this is.

Further, even with the ability to do that, patches or similar break it, and I think if the Xbox loses power, it also loses the save state because it has to use the actual memory, not the SSD. And it can only do it for one game at once.