Games With Single Slot (Auto) Savegames

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Dark Souls, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite... even the final latest Final Fucking Fantasy has it now. They all have an auto save system that saves the game in 1 save slot. No manual saves (not really), no multiple save slots.

WTF is going on? Is this a new 'thing'? Because I don't like it. Give me manual saves and, more importantly, give me multiple save slots. I like to replay certain parts of the game. I like to show some stuff to my friends. Don't give me this breaks immersion bullshit. There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

What do you think?

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Tomb Raider has 3 save slots. At least on PC.

Dragon's Dogma has this. Fucking hate it in that game. A single save file in an open world RPG which has quests with multiple endings! No! Terrible!

I had one quest where I had to go around collecting evidence for a trial, and depending on what I gathered the verdict would be either guilty or innocent. If he was innocent he rewards me, if guilty then he gets thrown in the dungeon and his family hate me. What's more, it was timed to three in-game days. I collected all the evidence to make sure he came out innocent, and waited for the three days for the trial. What I didn't realise is that I had to go and take the evidence to someone! And they decide to hold the trial right outside the inn. So when I woke up from my night in the inn to pass time, which also saves, I can't deliver my evidence, so he comes out guilty. I have to walk out the door, and I [/i]have[/i] to trigger the trial. After that I get shit for being lazy and not doing the quest! I fucking ran around everywhere trying to gather information! That pissed me off more than anything else in any game for a long while.

So yeah. All games should have multiple save slots. If not for stuff like that, then for things like glitches where you can possibly break your game through sequence breaking, or if you get stuck somewhere you can't get out of.

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Dark Souls is pretty much entirely built around the player dying, being punished, and learning from the experience. Removing the death penalty removes a major thematic asset to the entire game.

Bioshock Infinite has a much more major death penalty than the first game did, namely removing your progress (money) towards the next vigor upgrade.

Save scumming invalidates both of these things, so the developers removed it from their ruleset. Makes sense to me.

I can understand wanting to replay parts of a game/ get different endings, so when I make games I'll probably insist on some sort of chapter select system. Multiple save files for one play-through, however, I've always just found silly and superfluous. No that they're bad necessarily, but there is just no need for them in certain games.

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

This is something that I hate. I blame consoles because this feature didn't start showing up on PC titles until developing on consoles and porting to PC became common. It used to be standard for PC games to have a save menu. Now it is rarely seen, and checkpoints and auto-saves are the new norm. Then again, some developers do it on purpose to prevent players from having it too easy. Either way, I can't stand not having a good old-fashioned save system where I can save when and where I want!

I mainly hate it because I can't play the game the way I want or replay my favorite parts easily.

Dirty Hipsters:

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

Wouldn't we all like that. However, we're at the state where the developers think their vision and only their vision of how a game is played is correct. It's all stemming from the same hand holding, QTE, linear mentality that plagues AAA releases nowadays. No! Bad gamer! You can't linger here or try walk to that nice place over! Stay on track or suffer the consequences!

shiajun:

Wouldn't we all like that. However, we're at the state where the developers think their vision and only their vision of how a game is played is correct. It's all stemming from the same hand holding, QTE, linear mentality that plagues AAA releases nowadays. No! Bad gamer! You can't linger here or try walk to that nice place over! Stay on track or suffer the consequences!

I don't know, I still think that even having the option of save-scumming really makes the experience flat. I really agree with the point that dying in Dark Souls is actually a scary thing because you have something to loose. That's probably my biggest problem with Skyrim: you can't actually fail... ever. There's just minor, linear setbacks.

As "unrealistic" as dying and being resurrected is, there's something to be said for having penalties for death.

4RM3D:
Dark Souls, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite... even the final latest Final Fucking Fantasy has it now. They all have an auto save system that saves the game in 1 save slot. No manual saves (not really), no multiple save slots.

WTF is going on? Is this a new 'thing'? Because I don't like it. Give me manual saves and, more importantly, give me multiple save slots. I like to replay certain parts of the game. I like to show some stuff to my friends. Don't give me this breaks immersion bullshit. There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

What do you think?

They do that to make it so your actions have consequences and you cant just keep reloading until you get the outcome you want. With a lot of games it really enhances the experience. Dark Souls with multiple saves would ruin half of the game.

Scrustle:
That pissed me off more than anything else in any game for a long while.

Well then guess you better learn to read the fucking quests you are doing then.

4RM3D:
Dark Souls, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite... even the final latest Final Fucking Fantasy has it now. They all have an auto save system that saves the game in 1 save slot. No manual saves (not really), no multiple save slots.

WTF is going on? Is this a new 'thing'? Because I don't like it. Give me manual saves and, more importantly, give me multiple save slots. I like to replay certain parts of the game. I like to show some stuff to my friends. Don't give me this breaks immersion bullshit. There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

What do you think?

which final fantasy? cause if you mean 13-2, try saving from the Historia Crux.

If they're doing it to prevent save scumming, then you can make the popular anti DRM argument that they're punishing "good" customers by doing something to try and hamper the scum.
Having multiple save slots is a quality of life thing, quality is better with em.

I like it the way Dark Souls had it.
It makes you not do stupid shit, like kill all NPCs.

I like to reload when things don't go perfectly, but at the same time, it ruins the game for me.
How are you supposed to have a meaningful narrative, when you can immediately undo any choice to see the possible outcomes?

4RM3D:
Don't give me this breaks immersion bullshit. There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

Wait... so, it's more immersible to have a save screen? I... well, to each his own.

OT: Single-saves have been around since basically forever.

And I'm fine with it. I don't think it hinders the game at all to confine a playthrough to one save.

What I'm not fine with, are games with one save. No File 1/2/3, other whatever. Like, I really hate that Pokémon only lets you have one save per cartridge/card.

If they have a good, competent, predictable autosave, then I don't care. It's not that it makes or breaks immersion, it just adds some oft-needed weight to the game.

Scrustle:
Dragon's Dogma

...I seem to remember there being two save slots: manual and checkpoint. Checkpoint is the autosave while Manual is the one from going in through the menu (and can only be used by exiting to the title and going to Load.) Continue just goes to whichever save has the most recent timestamp.

Dirty Hipsters:

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

This, basically.

I'm not a huge fan of reloading to get my desired outcome, especially not on first play - but some people are and I say let them be. I AM a huge fan of keeping a save right before a particularly moving CS so that I can replay from that point and watch it again if I so choose, or tinker with responses to play with a scene on replays - the desire to do this tends to go up in proportion to how many times I have replayed something.

I know that YouTube now supposedly fills this need, but not adequately! Sometimes the quality of video is not desirable. Sometimes the person making vids is not doing what I would do or have them do. Searching for just the right one is a time sink eating up my time more voraciously than simply re-loading and tweaking my own damn game which I wanna play would!

Save-scumming is, by the nature of the term being derogatory, a bad thing players do to screw the game system. Replaying scenes for love of the game or wanting to get just the perfect dialog on your 10th replay because you have an outcome in mind is NOT a bad thing.

The first Dead Rising did this too

Heck, it was DESIGNED so that you had to play through the game for a while to level up, then play it again with your better-equipped Frank.

One save slot, manual saves; have fun raging if you screw up the timed mission!

I really liked the game, but that save slot... it's driven stronger people than I to paranoid insaniacs

I like it when a game autosaves. That means that I don't start back at level two when I die. I'm looking at you, Megaman Battle Network...

At the very least, I like it when I can manually save, but often don't have to. Games like Half Life or Starcraft II.

4RM3D:
...] latest Final Fucking Fantasy has it now. They all have an auto save system that saves the game in 1 save slot. No manual saves (not really), no multiple save slots.

FFXIII and FFXIII-2 have multiple save slots and manual saves. I'm not sure if you've encountered it in FFXIII-2 (you have to be in the historia crux), it took me a while to notice. If you have encountered it, then you've also encountered your answer. It takes multiple minutes to create a new save, and thats in the HC. They clearly have quite a complicated save system going on technologically (probably because of the saving progress at each time and area) and it didn't allow for saving as we normally know it.

Given that the HC stores your progress in each region, it's perfectly possible to have a new manual save for any place you're at though. It just takes a lot of time.

I'm surprised how little I'm bothered about it. The autosave feature is really good and has never let me down once, battles reset you to immediately before and since you can reverse time and replay any stretch of the game at any time, there's making a mistake and doing something I didn't want or wanting to try an alternative hasn't been a problem either. I created multiple saves, but I haven't ended up using them even once

Dirty Hipsters:

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

i second that sentiment

Bioshock Infinite only has one save slot? Is it like that on PC too? If it is that's really lame. I still intend on getting the game, but that kind of thing annoys me.

I hate it when a game only gives you one save slot because you're forced to overwrite all your data if you want to start a new game to show it to a friend, or if you just want to go back to earlier points you enjoyed. My biggest complaint about Brutal Legend was that it forces you to have one save and if you want to go back to an earlier point in the story you lose your progress(for the most part).

Also, I don't know if you're talking about the most recent Tomb Raider, but that has 3 save slots... on PC at least.

I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

Tank207:
Bioshock Infinite only has one save slot? Is it like that on PC too? If it is that's really lame. I still intend on getting the game, but that kind of thing annoys me.

I hate it when a game only gives you one save slot because you're forced to overwrite all your data if you want to start a new game to show it to a friend, or if you just want to go back to earlier points you enjoyed. My biggest complaint about Brutal Legend was that it forces you to have one save and if you want to go back to an earlier point in the story you lose your progress(for the most part).

That's my issue with it. I like being able to save and quit at my leisure, but if I can't at least give me a more than one save profile to work with.

The_Echo:
Wait... so, it's more immersible to have a save screen

That's not what was said.

Dirty Hipsters:

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

Welcome to the gaming community, where what you do in the privacy of your own home with your console of choice is considered to impact everyone who does it "properly."

...Come to think of it, that might not just be gamers.

I actually... it seems "unnatural" in a way to me, but it makes playing so much more fluent, so I don't really mind it. Though I like the most how Dishonored did it, one automatic checkpoint-based autosave, but you could also quick-save and normal-save. though I would like to be able to name saves on top of that.

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

What about letting the player choose? I, for one, would like to use the system described above to be able to make saves before various events in various "branches" of the story/level/whatever on my second playthrough, in case I want to fight a specific battle/do a very specific part of the story only.

(Obviously in 100% linear games, this is not needed, but it's still nice to have that option. Why should the game decide instead of me whether I will be savescumming or not?)

Zeren:
I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>

I figure it has to do with the reason they probably do it with Pokemon games.
Because now your little brother/friends can't play your copy, they have to go out and buy their own and there's no arguing because there's no way to save more files.

I had a terrible saving issue recently. I was playing Lotr:War in the North on couch coop with my girlfriend and on our second session it said saving for her character was disabled because I was further in the quest then her (which I wasn't)... I figured it would still save her character in my save and she could drop-in and continue no problem and we played anyway - only to have her progress wiped after 5 hours of play and no drop-in coop.

Because the game only has one persistant autosave (anti-cheating in an ARPG?) we could not go back to where are characters lined up and play from there, we need to start the game again and I don't like my chances of convincing her of that...

This is the first game I've convinced her to play with me and when she was finally getting the hang of it all her loot and levels are wiped and we can't progress together. Apparently this 'feature' was to stop power-levelling. In a couch coop game with no persistent online presence?

To stop us from cheating they totalled their game!

My question is:
Why is save scumming bad?
I see 3 reasons to save scum:
1. To get a random outcome to work in your favor
I see this as bypassing a flaw in the game. If your payout is random,or you need to get a specific drop, being screwed out of it due ot chance or having to mindlessly repeat the activity until it happens to work out right is a bad design in the game, and the problem is not the save scumming, its your game design
2. To do a section better
You are unsatisfied by how well you did a part, and you want to retry and get better. Thats great! Let the players improve their skills and practice.
3. There is a cost to attempting the task, and you will have to recoup that cost before trying again
I also see this as a flawed design. Just let the players practice as section, don't add in grinding for failure. This would again be bypassing design flaws in the game.

Sure, its not appropriate in every game to have second to second saves and be able to repeat every small detail until you get it right, but even with a checkpoint based save system you should be able to save multiple copies. You shouldn't need to. But you should have the option.
Besides, you shouldn't lose all your progress because the save got corrupted in some manner.

Piorn:
I like it the way Dark Souls had it.
It makes you not do stupid shit, like kill all NPCs.

I like to reload when things don't go perfectly, but at the same time, it ruins the game for me.
How are you supposed to have a meaningful narrative, when you can immediately undo any choice to see the possible outcomes?

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you have to. No one is going to force you to save scum just because the option is there. If you want to create a meaningful narrative for yourself the ability to save anywhere isn't going to stop you from doing that. All that being able to manually save does is give you more options, and options are always ALWAYS good.

Zachary Amaranth:

Zeren:
I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>

I never have that happen. I have played over 200 hours on skyrim and have never had a corrupted save. If ever I did, I wouldn't care because I have a backup save for exactly that issue. I also have my saves backed up on the Steam Cloud. I do not fear corrupted or erased saves because I can easily get them back. I could also just start a new character, pop in some console commands and have the save skills and items back in less than 10 minutes.

Yeah, it sucks ass. It goes with the future theme I've been seeing lately; greater technology but less options (because of their retarded vision or something). I only care for more save slots cause I'd like to replay an awesome part of the game.

Dirty Hipsters:

Genocidicles:

4RM3D:
There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

That's like saying developers should put an unlock all achievements button in their games for people who don't want to bother getting them normally. The developers put these choices and hard parts in for a reason, what is the point in having a very hard choice if you are going to allow people to say 'Let me see both and then decide.'
Why on earth would a dev put in effort to let people play their games in a way they didn't want it to be played?

Playing through BioShock Infinite atm and I hate it. I spend 3/4 time exploring a map and the rest shooting (losing coin isn't that bad since Elizabeth just keeps me pimpin' with silver when I'm walking around), so when I have to go I get rolled back a lot if I don't have time to reach the next checkpoint.

Some of us aren't glued to the PC 24/7, I'm not a highschooler anymore.

Trippy Turtle:

Dirty Hipsters:

Genocidicles:

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

That's like saying developers should put an unlock all achievements button in their games for people who don't want to bother getting them normally. The developers put these choices and hard parts in for a reason, what is the point in having a very hard choice if you are going to allow people to say 'Let me see both and then decide.'
Why on earth would a dev put in effort to let people play their games in a way they didn't want it to be played?

1. Who honestly gives a fuck about achievements? I mean really, would anyone not buy a game solely because it didn't have achievements in it?

2. What if you just want to have individual saves because sometimes you just want to replay your favorite part without having to slog through the game to get to it? Who the hell are you to limit what people can do with their game when it doesn't affect you? Who the hell are the developers to limit what you can do with your game as long as you paid them for it?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked