Games With Single Slot (Auto) Savegames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

DeadlyYellow:
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.

Exactly, you can only go from the most recent save. You can save yourself, or you have an autosave. But they both overwrite each other, so you can't go back if something fucks up.

Any game that forces only one save slot takes a VERY big risk. If Fallout 3 had only one save slot, the amount of game-killing bugs which force tracking back to earlier saves would have stopped me dead on the game.

That said, I absolutely don't mind backtracking to manipulate an outcome either. Example : Dragon Age 2. I wanted to be with Isabella, but she naffed off. I got involved with Merryl. Isabella came back. Then Merryl wouldn't leave.

I'd have gladly savescummed out of that, because how the hell could I know what was going to happen? But by then, 5 or 6 hours had passed, and I have limits!

It's a bad idea if the game glitches out which is a big possibility in open-world games.

For the few pc elitists that are blaming consoles; Hitman 1 had no saves and that was a pc exclusive (a mistake, even 1 save would of been a drastic improvement). The other hitman's had limited saves. 6 for normal and 3 for hard.

When a game is made well the save system is balanced with the gameplay for a desired result.
Dark souls and hitman 2-4 are good examples of this. MGS also doesn't let you quick save everything inch by inch. Completely different save systems that fit each game.

Games like skyrim and fallout need quick saves. The games are massive and the dev's can't programme in 10000000 checkpoints in a perfectly balanced way. That and the glitches are 100 times harder to identify.

So it's not a trend it's about what is suitable for the game and for the challenge. I also think games like skyrim, fallout, deus ex, are made in such a way you are supposed to manually save every so often. So when making a different type of game, developers are aware that gamers may be in the habit of saving and reloading repeatedly without realising they are ruining their own experience.

It even extends to choice games like mass effect. people will repeatedly reload to see outcomes...so Witcher 2 comes along and decides to make most outcomes happen several hours later so gamers don't reload out of habit.

Some games get it right, some get it wrong. Just like every other mechanic in each game.

I have the habit to quicksave a lot when I'm allowed to, and I'm happy if a games takes this option away from me. I want to live with the decisions I made, and don't want to repeat a sequence just to find the perfect solution. Alas, my self control is too weak.

So, yes, sometimes it benefits people if you take away a choice from them. ;)

But of course it only works, as Kirov above said, if the game itself saves frequently enough (unless death itself is a mechanic of the game, of course), if it's free of bugs with big impact, and if it's well written: If you are presented with choices in a game, and the writing suggests that your character does or says X if you choose option A, but actually does Y, then that sucks.

I always get annoyed when Pokemon games only had one save slot, because if you've played through the whole game, it stops you starting again beacyse you'll have to delete your whole completed profile if you want to resave your new game.

Imre Csete:
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.

a thousand times this.

I was so pissed earlier when I was near the end of a level and had to quit and it punted me back a ways because "WHAT YOU CANT HAVE REAL LIFE OBLIGATIONS!"

Autosaves only in modern games is inexcusable and absolute bullshit. Who cares if some players save scum anyway? its their game, let them play it how they please.

Dirty Hipsters:

Trippy Turtle:

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.

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?

People are welcome to mod it in themselves once they have paid for it, but why on earth would a developer put in extra effort just so people can play the game in a way they didn't intend it to be played?
People seem to think that dev's come second to the players in how their game should be created. The dev can do whatever the hell they want, if the player doesn't like it then they don't have to buy the game.

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?

It works in some games sure, but again, in a lot of cases it takes away the impact of choices or having a bad run. If I was a dev I would not add a feature like this to my game if it might as well have been an undo button when the player makes a mistake.
It would be nice to be able to replay certain areas, but short of adding a 'Memory replay' feature or something it just takes too much away from other parts of the game.

I'll just be happy if no game, ever, does what Rainbow Six: Vegas did: A single save slot with autosave. Oh, not a single save slot PER NEW GAME. No, just one slot. If your brother'd like to play too, he'd better wait untill you played through the entire campaign, cause he can only continue where you saved or erase your save and start over.

The best part was that there was a level-select option, that let you play any level you'd previously reached... but if you did, the game immediately forgot all your progress beyond that level. Whichever level you decided to play was as far as you'd gotten into the campaign as far as the game was concerned.

Fucking Ubisoft

Dragon's Dogma so much!! It's made even worse when the frigging game autosaves for you at certain points. Once I handed in a quest only for me to find out that completing it meant automatically failing another quest which I didn't know had to be completed before. I tried to reload a recent save (not an inn checkpoint) only to find that the game had autosaved right after I handed in that quest, and the inn checkpoint was too far behind. I was like "BRGNNNNNNNNNNN HNNGGGGNNN! WTF IS THIS CRAP!"

Scrustle:
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.

Now this is how using one slot autosaves can go wrong. Manual saves, auto saves, multiple save slots and so on are all heavily dependent on what type of game. RPG's, specially the extremely open non-linear ones need to support multiple save slots. I've seen the argument of ''it adds weight'' to the gameplay, but hell, it's YOUR choice to reload that save or not.

manual saves are NECESSARY for a good game.

What if something goes wrong? You need to restart? Oops, checkpoint 2 levels away. Better hurry.

What if the game becomes choppy? And needs a restart like Bioshock does CONSTANTLY? Sorry, you just gotta hope you are near a checkpoint and rough it.

Save scumming? Screw that "defense." Manual saves are the thing saving a game from being a fucking NIGHTMARE.

Bioshock infinite was literally ruined for me because of the lack of manual saves. I can't even be bothered to finish it anymore because the stuttering gets so bad on a rig that blows both requirements out of the water.

There are people with intel i7s and GTX 650s getting stuttering, and complaining on forums while I type this.

Imre Csete:
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.

And THIS. Just THIS.

Mikejames:

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.

Agreed. Now if I want to show my partner the amazing intro I'll have to restart my entire game. That annoys me greatly.

I like single saves because it allows my skill to shine through :)

Manual saves are just cheating and while i concede that it's nice to have a save near some favourite parts of games a better option would be like Hitman bloodmoney where you can go back and replay levels once completing them. Being able to save whenever makes the player worse at the game and makes the game ultimately an inevitable completion.

You do something slightly wrong and bang, reload, it never happened. Lost a little too much health, reload, it never happened. I think they should put in negative achievements where you can see who uses dodgy tactics to cheat their way past the challenge as opposed to doing it the way it was intended.

Ultratwinkie:
Save scumming? Screw that "defense." Manual saves are the thing saving a game from being a fucking NIGHTMARE.

You mean nightmare as in challenging?

Personally, as some have already pointed out, it is more of an issue of not being able to quit and continue whenever you so see fit and of course negating the possibility for having multiple games running in parallel, whether it be a different type of character in rpg's or simply your siblings/friends wanting to play as well.
And yes, also the fact that games can glitch out and that can severely hamper ones enjoyment because hours worth of meticulous planning goes to hell due to a crash.

Save scumming, meh, too each their own, it is a single player game for crying out loud.

CannibalCorpses:

Ultratwinkie:
Save scumming? Screw that "defense." Manual saves are the thing saving a game from being a fucking NIGHTMARE.

You mean nightmare as in challenging?

didn't know screen stuttering = challenging

CannibalCorpses:
Agreed. Now if I want to show my partner the amazing intro I'll have to restart my entire game. That annoys me greatly.

It's awkward when I resolve to delete a profile to introduce the game to someone only for them to quickly lose interest.
"I gave up my pre-finale save for yooouuu!!"

CannibalCorpses:
I like single saves because it allows my skill to shine through :)

Manual saves are just cheating and while i concede that it's nice to have a save near some favourite parts of games a better option would be like Hitman bloodmoney where you can go back and replay levels once completing them. Being able to save whenever makes the player worse at the game and makes the game ultimately an inevitable completion.

Games shouldn't be an inevitable completion?

it sucks, especially when you cant back track. resident evil 6 does that too.

you think "oh, hey i need to go here, but first i am going to explore over there for ammunition and stuff"
well to bad, motherfucker! turns out "over there" was the real way to progress the story.
and god damn i hate that.

Trippy Turtle:

Dirty Hipsters:

Trippy Turtle:

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?

People are welcome to mod it in themselves once they have paid for it, but why on earth would a developer put in extra effort just so people can play the game in a way they didn't intend it to be played?
People seem to think that dev's come second to the players in how their game should be created. The dev can do whatever the hell they want, if the player doesn't like it then they don't have to buy the game.

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?

It works in some games sure, but again, in a lot of cases it takes away the impact of choices or having a bad run. If I was a dev I would not add a feature like this to my game if it might as well have been an undo button when the player makes a mistake.
It would be nice to be able to replay certain areas, but short of adding a 'Memory replay' feature or something it just takes too much away from other parts of the game.

It takes nothing away from the game. If it takes something away from the game for you, then it's a feature you don't have to use. No one is forcing you to undo decisions that you've made, no one is forcing YOU to exploit the save system. And if someone else wants to exploit the save system then it's not taking anything away from them either, because they don't value having to live with the decisions they make, or their mistakes. Nothing gets taken away from the game by adding this, but a lot of control is being taken away from the player by removing it.

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

But the game auto saves in 1 slot only. The other 2 slots are for new playthroughs.

BrotherRool:
*snip*

Ah, that explains it. Still not an ideal solution, though.

Genocidicles:
...To stop save-scumming...

Well, with Dark Souls it kinda makes sense. However that is not the case with most games. Pretty much this:

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.

Tank207:
Bioshock Infinite only has one save slot? Is it like that on PC too?

Yup, I've played it on the PC. One save slot for each playthrough.

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?

You can't compare it with achievements, because achievements don't change the functionality of the game. And achievements are meant especially for people who are either perfectionists or like to do extra stuff.

I too, hate this A LOT. There is literally NO reason for this, and it's just player unfriendly. What if the one savegame you worked so very hard for becomes corrupted? For the love of the industry, game developers, stop this madness!

4RM3D:

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

But the game auto saves in 1 slot only. The other 2 slots are for new playthroughs.

No, you can tell the game to auto save in any of the 3 slots. If you change the auto save slot, the previous earlier save is kept.

Its how the developers want the game to be experienced, if you don't like it you are welcome to mod it so that there is more that one save slot(or, if you don't like mods, just backup your save file when you think you might screwup something).
Also single save slot games have existed on the PC for a long time, in the '80s some games even modified game files as you played so if you wanted to start fresh you had to reinstall the game.

CloudAtlas:

4RM3D:

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

But the game auto saves in 1 slot only. The other 2 slots are for new playthroughs.

No, you can tell the game to auto save in any of the 3 slots. If you change the auto save slot, the previous earlier save is kept.

But you can only change the save slot when starting a new game, no? You can't change mid game, thus the problem still exists.

I instantly missed being able to manually save in Infinite. But then it made up for everything by offering a chapter select after you win the game.

...I just lost the game...

Anyway, I recognize the desire for manual saving, but it did keep me from doing what I seem to automatically do in games: Save Scumming. I appreciate that they're trying to make things more challenging. Keep it on the rpgs though. Seriously, keep it on the goram rpg. We needs our saving for optimization, and really, how are we supposed to figure out our favorite builds if we can't experiment?

rhizhim:
it sucks, especially when you cant back track. resident evil 6 does that too.

you think "oh, hey i need to go here, but first i am going to explore over there for ammunition and stuff"
well to bad, motherfucker! turns out "over there" was the real way to progress the story.
and god damn i hate that.

This. This so much in Bioshock Infinite. They got me with this twice already and then locked a fucking gate behind me to boot. Any linear game with collectible items like voxophones and RPG elements should not deprive players opportunities to collect them. It's like they don't even want me to find them since they keep shoving huge blinking mission objectives in my face every time I stay in one area for more than 60 seconds. It took them years to design every single nook and cranny of this gorgeous game and I'm damn well going to take the time to fully appreciate all of it.

amara2021:
This. This so much in Bioshock Infinite. They got me with this twice already and then locked a fucking gate behind me to boot...

That sucks, but at least you got a navigation pointer where your next main objective is. Thus I try to go everywhere BUT the objective pointer. It has worked out pretty well so far. Also backtracking is rewarded every now and then.

CannibalCorpses:

Ultratwinkie:
Save scumming? Screw that "defense." Manual saves are the thing saving a game from being a fucking NIGHTMARE.

You mean nightmare as in challenging?

No, a nightmare in "this game's unoptimized as fuck" and now I have to play the same section of the game for it to happen AGAIN and force me into another restart.

Challenge? In a consolized first person shooter? There is no such thing.

I was under the impression that sticking to one save is tempting fate

you know mabie on the off chance that the save gets corrupt.

Its not like its happened to me so bloody often i cant even count it on one hand, just sayin.

There is a way to get around it, once, on 360 at least. I've had to do it on Dragons Dogma and LotR War in the North. Save once on hard drive. Other playthrough on the cloud. We had to do that for my brother to get a playthrough.

I personally like having the ability to save on the fly. Its extremely annoying when you have to stop gaming and have to redo the area again just because you did not reach a checkpoint.

Innegativeion:

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.

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.

I was going to point out the same thing, but then remembered a friend of mine refusing to buy the game (no matter how much I praised it) precisely because he didn't want to be under that kind of pressure. He wanted the leniency of being able to fuck up. You could argue that goes against the nature of the game, and make a fine case for that idea, but it does strike me as unnecessary to force this uniformly on all players.

That said, I would like to vent about Sniper Elite V2, which not only auto-saved, but had all the grace of a drunk clown in doing so. "Saving" the game would claim. The text would disappear and I'd haphazardly and gleefully run into a room full or enemies. After my inevitable yet joyous death, I would elect to continue only to find that the game had actually saved several seconds after it had told me it was done saving.

Respawning in the middle of being shot at and getting caught in a permanent death-loop, which forces you to restart a mission from scratch 50 minutes in will sour any gaming experience. If a developer feels the need to implement this kind of unpleasant and unforgiving system, they should at least put in the effort to get it right. Dark Souls planned this shit out. SEV2 half-assed it and shit the bed.

Side-note: Your Naoto avatar made me squee out loud.

SwimmingRock:
*snip*

Well I *would* say that's the nature of the game, and that Dark Souls probably just isn't for him. It's specifically trying to convey an experience he specifically doesn't want a part of.

No different from Yahtzee disliking JRPGs and RTSs.

Some games just benefit from the single-save system, in the experience they are trying to convey.

I would say the loss of a few sales of people who don't like that kind of pressure to be worth it for making a niche game like Dark Souls, which is a cult classic for a reason. That is why Dark Souls 2's apparent focus on broadening the audience worries me that they might be cheapening the experience, but it's too early to tell there just yet.

PS:

Thank you, more people need to bask in the warm sight of unbinded, sleeveless Naoto.

Dirty Hipsters:
snip

That is entirely beside the point.
What I am trying to get across is why the hell would a developer add bother adding in the first place, when it would be used to play the game in a way the dev didn't intend?
I'm not arguing whether or not its a good feature. Simply that nobody in their right mind would put in the effort to add something that would possibly take depth or difficulty out of their game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked