In my experience limited saving in survival horror just sucks all the tension out of the reload anyway because I know what to expect and what I have to do on the sequence I have to replay
i think if you come up with a conceit for it, there's ways you could limit saving that'd be engaging
like, your pause menu in goldeneye is 007's watch, what happens if his arms are tied up
removing the player's ability to get to the story conceit that embodies their ability to save could be interesting, if tricky to execute on
This feels like the "you shouldn't be allowed to pause in dark souls it would ruin the game" claim again
You like the game as is, that's fine
But claiming that a thing done for convenience is going to ruin tension and atmosphere just seems insane
Dark souls does has a good save system though, you are punished for death by losing your place and souls but you get to keep your items and a chance to retrieve your souls
It would be much weaker if the bonfires were just limited save points
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
Then don't let me pause
That's am artificial tension breaker
The video game is a construct, you have to allow for a player to experience it at their convenience because they are a human with shit to do
They aren't actually the character in the game
Build your world and atmosphere but it has to be usable by a human in a reasonable fashion because that's who you're making it for
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
I can see the argument for not being able to save in the middle of a fight
But if I'm just standing in a hallway I am having a moment to breathe
This feels like the "you shouldn't be allowed to pause in dark souls it would ruin the game" claim again
You like the game as is, that's fine
But claiming that a thing done for convenience is going to ruin tension and atmosphere just seems insane
Dark souls does has a good save system though, you are punished for death by losing your place and souls but you get to keep your items and a chance to retrieve your souls
It would be much weaker if the bonfires were just limited save points
I agree, wasn't talking about the save system
Ds also saves literally wherever you are, and that game us ALL about tension, and it doesn't break it somehow
Those typewriters had enough ink for months and months of usage. You could type to your hearts content and not worry about going to a Office Max or Home Depot for awhile.
Because holy shit do I hate locked content behind multiple playthroughs
Yeah it's all still recorded in the Bombers Notebook, which somehow is immune to the effects of time travel even though it's just a book some punkass kids give you?
And since you can rewind time as many times as necessary before the final boss you can absolutely do everything before the game "ends"
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
Then don't let me pause
That's am artificial tension breaker
The video game is a construct, you have to allow for a player to experience it at their convenience because they are a human with shit to do
They aren't actually the character in the game
Build your world and atmosphere but it has to be usable by a human in a reasonable fashion because that's who you're making it for
As I already said, I'm fine with temporary saves (which would accomplish what you're asking for). It's requiring all games to have a permanent save-anywhere function that I find ludicrous and limiting.
Some games use location-specific saves for tension, challenge, or pacing. This is not inherently a bad thing, but if it's not to your liking you aren't required to play it. There are entire genres out there that I don't like, but I don't see a reason to mandate that they change to suit me, I simply don't play them.
The idea that all uses of this system are inherently broken and the audience it appeals to should be cut off so it can appeal to you instead is maddening.
Besides, not all entertainment outside video games is designed to be bite-sized anyways. Board games, going to the theater, heck generally going out nearly anywhere (ie. museums, zoos, etc.) all have some sort of pre-built time commitment that is outside of your control. There are also a wide range of video games, some of which can be picked up and put down at anytime (like books) and some which cannot. There's no reason both cannot exist.
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
I can see the argument for not being able to save in the middle of a fight
But if I'm just standing in a hallway I am having a moment to breathe
That makes a certain amount of sense.
However, being allowed to save usually indicates that you are completely safe (within that room) in that type of game. So if you can save in that hallway, that should actually be the case (no traps, no creatures through windows). But then again, the indication of whether you could save or not would blatantly point out that there is nothing to harm you and would thus take away from the suspense of not knowing if something is around the corner or not.
Some games use location-specific saves for tension, challenge, or pacing. This is not inherently a bad thing, but if it's not to your liking you aren't required to play it. There are entire genres out there that I don't like, but I don't see a reason to mandate that they change to suit me, I simply don't play them.
Being able to save any time in a proper platformer would completely ruin the game. Having a game that's all about learning, repeating, and perfecting a set sequence where you can literally save every time you make an inch of progress would ruin the game. Even VVVVVV, the game that basically does what I just said (albeit, having been built with this functionality specifically in mind), has a multi-screen sequence that is incredibly punishing and you can't save until you've completed and it's the best part of the game. Save at every checkpoint in a stage? Sure. Being able to save after that one bullshit jump? Just put the damn game on SuperGuide because why are you even playing it at this point?
Being able to save any time in a proper platformer would completely ruin the game. Having a game that's all about learning, repeating, and perfecting a set sequence where you can literally save every time you make an inch of progress would ruin the game. Even VVVVVV, the game that basically does what I just said (albeit, having been built with this functionality specifically in mind), has a multi-screen sequence that is incredibly punishing and you can't save until you've completed and it's the best part of the game. Save at every checkpoint in a stage? Sure. Being able to save after that one bullshit jump? Just put the damn game on SuperGuide because why are you even playing it at this point?
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
Then don't let me pause
That's am artificial tension breaker
The video game is a construct, you have to allow for a player to experience it at their convenience because they are a human with shit to do
They aren't actually the character in the game
Build your world and atmosphere but it has to be usable by a human in a reasonable fashion because that's who you're making it for
As I already said, I'm fine with temporary saves (which would accomplish what you're asking for). It's requiring all games to have a permanent save-anywhere function that I find ludicrous and limiting.
Some games use location-specific saves for tension, challenge, or pacing. This is not inherently a bad thing, but if it's not to your liking you aren't required to play it. There are entire genres out there that I don't like, but I don't see a reason to mandate that they change to suit me, I simply don't play them.
The idea that all uses of this system are inherently broken and the audience it appeals to should be cut off so it can appeal to you instead is maddening.
Besides, not all entertainment outside video games is designed to be bite-sized anyways. Board games, going to the theater, heck generally going out nearly anywhere (ie. museums, zoos, etc.) all have some sort of pre-built time commitment that is outside of your control. There are also a wide range of video games, some of which can be picked up and put down at anytime (like books) and some which cannot. There's no reason both cannot exist.
I'm not saying they can't exist
I'm saying the reasons I've seen for them existing are not compelling
I can't think of any legitimate reason for you to be unable to save anywhere in Zelda, or a survival horror game, or whatever
"tension" does not ring true to me as a reason at all
Being able to save any time in a proper platformer would completely ruin the game. Having a game that's all about learning, repeating, and perfecting a set sequence where you can literally save every time you make an inch of progress would ruin the game. Even VVVVVV, the game that basically does what I just said (albeit, having been built with this functionality specifically in mind), has a multi-screen sequence that is incredibly punishing and you can't save until you've completed and it's the best part of the game. Save at every checkpoint in a stage? Sure. Being able to save after that one bullshit jump? Just put the damn game on SuperGuide because why are you even playing it at this point?
To have fun
Always, always the answer
Yeah, but there's nothing fun about a game if you can circumvent the challenge. The entire point of a platformer is to challenge the user and force them to, through repetition, become better at the game. Similar example, being able to save scum action-by-action in RPGs. That frustration of screwing up and having to do the entire battle over again? That's by design. That is the intent of the game and where challenge comes from. If you think all games should give people the option to completely strip all challenge from them, then you and I have very different expectations of a video game and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion.
Being able to save any time in a proper platformer would completely ruin the game. Having a game that's all about learning, repeating, and perfecting a set sequence where you can literally save every time you make an inch of progress would ruin the game. Even VVVVVV, the game that basically does what I just said (albeit, having been built with this functionality specifically in mind), has a multi-screen sequence that is incredibly punishing and you can't save until you've completed and it's the best part of the game. Save at every checkpoint in a stage? Sure. Being able to save after that one bullshit jump? Just put the damn game on SuperGuide because why are you even playing it at this point?
To have fun
Always, always the answer
Yeah, but there's nothing fun about a game if you can circumvent the challenge. The entire point of a platformer is to challenge the user and force them to, through repetition, become better at the game. Similar example, being able to save scum action-by-action in RPGs. That frustration of screwing up and having to do the entire battle over again? That's by design. That is the intent of the game and where challenge comes from. If you think all games should give people the option to completely strip all challenge from them, then you and I have very different expectations of a video game and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion.
I'm saying the reasons I've seen for them existing are not compelling
I can't think of any legitimate reason for you to be unable to save anywhere in Zelda, or a survival horror game, or whatever
"tension" does not ring true to me as a reason at all
It works for some people. You're not one of those people. That's all the legitimate reason it needs to exist (provided that it is targeted at those people...though admittedly most non-indie games now almost have to be targeted towards the majority instead of niche audiences due to game budgets being insane, but that's a separate thing).
The ability for every game to allow saves at any time is independent of whether or not that is actually a good idea for a specific game. Punishing save states is integral to certain types of games. Survival horror that lets you save anywhere, for instance, is bullshit.
Never gonna agree with this
Its artificial tension, tension from something that is not the actual game and systems
If you can't create the feeling and atmosphere you want without restricting my ability to play the game when I want to, I am much less likely to play your game
The thing that strikes me as artificial is being in a hostile environment and going "okay save" at any given point when that should be limited to times when you have a moment to breathe. Tension is not being safe. You absolutely break it when you can dictate the point you jump back into the game.
I can see the argument for not being able to save in the middle of a fight
But if I'm just standing in a hallway I am having a moment to breathe
That makes a certain amount of sense.
However, being allowed to save usually indicates that you are completely safe (within that room) in that type of game. So if you can save in that hallway, that should actually be the case (no traps, no creatures through windows). But then again, the indication of whether you could save or not would blatantly point out that there is nothing to harm you and would thus take away from the suspense of not knowing if something is around the corner or not.
my logic is that if I am in a position in the game where I could potentially leave it running indefinitely standing still at that point without anything attacking me, my character has time to write a journal and I should be able to save
If I step forward five feet and a zombie dog pops out then sure, but let me deal with that zombie dog later and if the zombie dog kills me let me load right before it instead of replaying half an hour
If you don't want to save scum... Don't save scum.
This is my issue when I get down to it
Just like I got in a huge fight with people about the huge amounts of sidewuests in dragon age inquisition, here's my big problem with this idea:
If you don't want to, you can just not.
I cannot save anywhere in a game that doesn't give me the option. YOU CAN, however, only save in certain spots or whatever rules you want if that makes the game better for you.
If you feel it increases tension, don't abuse the save system.
But don't restrict it for people whod rather it be on there.
If you plan everything out you can just barely kill all four bosses and complete most of not all side quests in mm by the end of the game
I know because I've done it
pretty sure you can't both save the bomb lady and do Kafei and Anju's quest, but that might be the only conflict
the frogs would be pretty annoying, though, and in general you'd be very pressed for time
on the topic of saving or the lack thereof, I'm imagining Nethack with free saves and that'd be a completely different game
like, ridiculously so
Majora's Mask isn't quite at that level when it comes to limited saves, but I kind of agree with Lars and Rehab. Dungeon items, masks and owl statues let you basically skip past large parts that you've already played. Although I'd be alright with being able to save anywhere in MM as long as it's of the non-permanent sort, to be honest.
The recent revelation about the original Super Mario Bros. secretly letting you continue from the world you left off makes me wonder if they haven't always been against the bullshititude of restarting
Maybe memory limitations were always their problem
I just don't think it's unreasonable for the makers of a game to create artificial limits on what you can do or have expectations for how you play it. Obviously there's a point where the limitations get in the way of enjoyability (never finished Final Fantasy III DS because I died at the boss of a particularly challenging dungeon and just couldn't face doing the whole thing over again), but I don't think every single game should cater to the people who place that point at 0.
Posts
like, your pause menu in goldeneye is 007's watch, what happens if his arms are tied up
removing the player's ability to get to the story conceit that embodies their ability to save could be interesting, if tricky to execute on
This is very, incredibly, unbelievably unfortunate
Dark souls does has a good save system though, you are punished for death by losing your place and souls but you get to keep your items and a chance to retrieve your souls
It would be much weaker if the bonfires were just limited save points
Then don't let me pause
That's am artificial tension breaker
The video game is a construct, you have to allow for a player to experience it at their convenience because they are a human with shit to do
They aren't actually the character in the game
Build your world and atmosphere but it has to be usable by a human in a reasonable fashion because that's who you're making it for
The ink ribbons from RE1 though are horseshit
When I say "run" I mean one 3-day time cycle in the game
You can 100% the game in one playthrough, but not in the 3 days of in-game time and have a "canon" run
There's not nearly enough time to do so, probably not even to do half of it
A full cycle is maybe an hour to 90 minutes at best, and you'd have to do every sidequest in the game in that time
Despite them being text on a page that I can put down or even read ahead with.
The limited saves tension argument holds no water with me.
Much better!
Because holy shit do I hate locked content behind multiple playthroughs
I can see the argument for not being able to save in the middle of a fight
But if I'm just standing in a hallway I am having a moment to breathe
I agree, wasn't talking about the save system
Ds also saves literally wherever you are, and that game us ALL about tension, and it doesn't break it somehow
Those typewriters had enough ink for months and months of usage. You could type to your hearts content and not worry about going to a Office Max or Home Depot for awhile.
Typewriters are bullshit
Reboot RE1 and put computer terminals there
Yeah it's all still recorded in the Bombers Notebook, which somehow is immune to the effects of time travel even though it's just a book some punkass kids give you?
And since you can rewind time as many times as necessary before the final boss you can absolutely do everything before the game "ends"
As I already said, I'm fine with temporary saves (which would accomplish what you're asking for). It's requiring all games to have a permanent save-anywhere function that I find ludicrous and limiting.
Some games use location-specific saves for tension, challenge, or pacing. This is not inherently a bad thing, but if it's not to your liking you aren't required to play it. There are entire genres out there that I don't like, but I don't see a reason to mandate that they change to suit me, I simply don't play them.
The idea that all uses of this system are inherently broken and the audience it appeals to should be cut off so it can appeal to you instead is maddening.
Besides, not all entertainment outside video games is designed to be bite-sized anyways. Board games, going to the theater, heck generally going out nearly anywhere (ie. museums, zoos, etc.) all have some sort of pre-built time commitment that is outside of your control. There are also a wide range of video games, some of which can be picked up and put down at anytime (like books) and some which cannot. There's no reason both cannot exist.
That makes a certain amount of sense.
However, being allowed to save usually indicates that you are completely safe (within that room) in that type of game. So if you can save in that hallway, that should actually be the case (no traps, no creatures through windows). But then again, the indication of whether you could save or not would blatantly point out that there is nothing to harm you and would thus take away from the suspense of not knowing if something is around the corner or not.
Bingo.
To have fun
Always, always the answer
I'm not saying they can't exist
I'm saying the reasons I've seen for them existing are not compelling
I can't think of any legitimate reason for you to be unable to save anywhere in Zelda, or a survival horror game, or whatever
"tension" does not ring true to me as a reason at all
I know because I've done it
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Yeah, but there's nothing fun about a game if you can circumvent the challenge. The entire point of a platformer is to challenge the user and force them to, through repetition, become better at the game. Similar example, being able to save scum action-by-action in RPGs. That frustration of screwing up and having to do the entire battle over again? That's by design. That is the intent of the game and where challenge comes from. If you think all games should give people the option to completely strip all challenge from them, then you and I have very different expectations of a video game and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion.
Alright then!
Good talk
Computer terminals would look really out of place in a decrepit looking mansion that is meant to appear old.
Actually, is it that the mansion is old and everything Umbrella built around it is new or is the mansion newly constructed to? I forget.
It works for some people. You're not one of those people. That's all the legitimate reason it needs to exist (provided that it is targeted at those people...though admittedly most non-indie games now almost have to be targeted towards the majority instead of niche audiences due to game budgets being insane, but that's a separate thing).
Yeah I heard it has a great new save system
Better have one in the dining room too, just to be safe.
If you don't want to play games that expect you to make it through a part of the game in one sitting...don't play them.
my logic is that if I am in a position in the game where I could potentially leave it running indefinitely standing still at that point without anything attacking me, my character has time to write a journal and I should be able to save
If I step forward five feet and a zombie dog pops out then sure, but let me deal with that zombie dog later and if the zombie dog kills me let me load right before it instead of replaying half an hour
See, its built right into the definition of saving all the time for fear of losing your precious progress. Scum. Scum!
This is my issue when I get down to it
Just like I got in a huge fight with people about the huge amounts of sidewuests in dragon age inquisition, here's my big problem with this idea:
If you don't want to, you can just not.
I cannot save anywhere in a game that doesn't give me the option. YOU CAN, however, only save in certain spots or whatever rules you want if that makes the game better for you.
If you feel it increases tension, don't abuse the save system.
But don't restrict it for people whod rather it be on there.
the frogs would be pretty annoying, though, and in general you'd be very pressed for time
on the topic of saving or the lack thereof, I'm imagining Nethack with free saves and that'd be a completely different game
like, ridiculously so
Majora's Mask isn't quite at that level when it comes to limited saves, but I kind of agree with Lars and Rehab. Dungeon items, masks and owl statues let you basically skip past large parts that you've already played. Although I'd be alright with being able to save anywhere in MM as long as it's of the non-permanent sort, to be honest.
Maybe memory limitations were always their problem
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Basically the goddess of Time ensures all your good deeds happen the mask is your proof. Just imagine hundreds of "ghost" links running around