I don’t mind this discussion again but I am tired of us forum members voicing our frustations only for COG to change nothing in the end. What is the purpose of giving feedback if there is no intention of changing the system.
Edit : Also appreciate the authors who have included a save system in their games despite no obligation. Its a shame that a save system is not provided by choicescript despite twine and a few HGs already using it and to great success
Even writing it as you go seems very laborious to me. Unless there’s a better way of doing it, you have to make new variables which “double” the variables that you actually need, set them all to the same value as the actual variables at the point of the checkpoint, meticulously keep track of every variable that can change over the course of the chapter, then code in a reversion to the old values later. It’s a lot. Imagining a world where I could do all that just by typing in something like *set checkpoint 1 gives me an inordinate amount of pleasure
Speaking of that, can’t a script like that be made? CSIDE seems to have some form of text recognition inside of it, highlights system being the main source of my guess. Can’t it read off bits of code in order to create a script that implements variables and their change?
I do feel this in my soul 
I spent… let’s say a while doing it line by line this week for old games so it’s very fresh in my mind!
Putting personal experiences and what people (readers and authors) value about IF aside, we have to consider that other engines like Twine are more likely to have a save system. Including multiple save files, the ability to delete them, having offline/external saves, etc. That not all Choicescript games support this feature likely hampers their competitiveness in the IF market.
It has been over a decade since the first published Choicescript work. As stories have evolved to be longer and much more involved, it’s only natural for the engine to evolve in conjunction and include new features (or at the very least QoL improvements).
Re: making failed states equally interesting as successful ones, 1. This approach will not work for all stories, especially those that intend to be serious about choice and consequence, 2. Many readers are drawn to IF for the power fantasy element, and repeated failures considerably detract from this fantasy. (Or, like me, you’re anxious about accidentally offending a companion or making the wrong choice.)
What I don’t understand is why COG keeps pushing against this idea becuase eventually in the future they will have to implement a save system to deal with the ever growing word counts of releases as well as the growing competetion in the market with Twine. Why not prepare for the future and implement a save system now
No. Save function wasn’t always there.
We had checkpoints before, didn’t we? like in old Mario Bros? or Zelda: A link to the Past. You couldn’t ‘Save’, but you had checkpoint. Like Prince of Persia. It sort of saved on the level you were on.
A proper save option, came with Playstation 1. When they released the PS1 with save Cards. They had limited space.
Fallen Hero 2 game, already offering a CheckPoint save point.
Giving feedbacks doesn’t mean they have to use said feedbacks.
I think the biggest issue with ‘Save System’ is also, deleting said Saves.
And if I’m not wrong, someone already created a Tool that can save your game if you wanted.
Yes there are workarounds to the save issue. But the workarounds exist because COG has been unwilling to make one. It would be far better QOL if it was part of choicescript already
I’m up to my ears right now, but when I get some free time I intend to update my soft save system to be more convenient.
I do not doubt some part of it is ideological, however ChoiceScript has basically the same source code since over 10 years ago. I’m not trying to be mean, but it is outdated and a bit of a mess really.
If I have it right, CoG doesn’t have an in-house dedicated software developer, except for Dan, who has a day job and a private life outside CoG. He is either unable or unwilling to spend time changing the source code and only updates it to fix minor bugs. CoG has relied a lot on contributions from the community.
This is also the reason why, I suspect, CoG doesn’t accept games which use the *script command, because they have no-one to Validate the code and shipping a game with arbitrary javascript would not be responsible.
At this point, I respectfully think they should consider hiring a freelance developer to implement much needed changes to the source code.
Só, I believe there’s a technical and business aspect ot it. I don’t think it’s only an ideological decision. If it ever made sense in the past, it doesn’t anymore.
Every once I a while this conversation comes up and the take away is almost unanimous that a save system would be more than welcomed.
So, it is more about ‘I want them to do what I want’ rather than…a honest feedback?
Thing is, it doesn’t matter, COG is a business and a business needs to please its customers for said customers to return to the business to keep buying things, adding a save system, or at least a checkpoint system would do that. It’s generally not a smart idea to piss off your entire Fanbase and for the last couple years now, that’s exactly what’s been happening.
Not necessarly. If that was the case, most big Games Publishers would have sunk a longtime ago lol
But the other thing is that CoG doesn’t really have a competitor. At least not in the same niche of narrative based games.
Other companies in the similar market, like Pixelberry Studios, prefere to bet on visual novel with their app Choices. Inkle Studios likes to experiment with their engine and each game is a different beast altogether. Fighting Fantasy, Delight Games and others have a very specific aesthetic that I’m sure wouldn’t please the usual ChoiceScript fan. Most Twine games, if they ever even become commercial, are released independently and you never get to hear about them unless you’re really paying attention.
So we can vent our frustrations all we want, but CoG is in a confortable position. I doubt they’ve been loosing revenue for the lack of a save/checkpoint system. So they have no incentive to implement it, especially if they’ll have to invest a sum hiring a developer.
That being said, I think that’s just the right thing to do. That’s what players and authors have been requesting for a considerable time now.
Creating a viable engine with modern programming as a competitor for COG isn’t too hard of a task, but the business side of it, making it go public, and bringing attention to it, that’s the big issue. But at this point, I think, creating a viable competitor, for COG is more likely than a save/checkpoint system ever being implemented.
Yup, I believe they’ll only implement it when the lack of it becomes a real threat to their business, which is not the current situation, but still a shame.
Please keep focusing on the topic and not other forum members.
Edited: sorry, posted the original comment before I saw Eiwynn’s comment!
That’s not been happening. A vocal group of fans have repeatedly asked for something. We’re not the whole fanbase.
It’s been a while since CoG responded on this, so I don’t know what they’re thinking these days. My understanding of what they’ve said in the past would be something like this: the core experience of a CoG game is consequential choice, of agonizing over the options before hitting that radio button and seeing what unfolds. When they playtested it back in their early days, CoG came away with indications that the ability to flip back and try multiple alternatives, whether with a back button or a save-at-will system, undermines the core experience.
They’ve built a big and AFAIK still growing audience by reliably delivering that experience. (Arguably. Feel free to counter with alternative ideas of what the CoG core experience is.) I’m not surprised that they’d be cautious about tinkering with it at the roots, even when there’s clearly a big group of fans that want the change. Sure, in one sense,
but if they introduce a feature that ends up undermining what’s distinctive about the CoG reading experience, they could be gutting their future profits to make a vocal minority of fans happy.
As an analogy: From Software would no doubt get some new players if they added an easy mode – like me! I tried Dark Souls on PC and decided life’s too short, no matter how good the story is – but would that outweigh the customers they’d lose by abandoning the (intensely annoying, stressful, often actively unpleasant) core game experience that sets them apart from other comparable studios?
It’s certainly possible that the lack of a save system
But so far, when it comes to sales, CoG is miles ahead of the competitors you mention. Maybe there are more people than we think who are attracted to the “hard mode” CoG offers – to the fact that if they make a choice they’re unhappy with, their choices are to run with it or restart.
At any rate, it’s not obvious to me that CoG’s right move here is to go with the vocal fan demands, rather than listening to how people are voting with their wallets. (If those two diverge – only CoG could tell us if that’s the way the evidence points.)
And I don’t doubt that some of it is the if-it-ain’t-breaking approach to code of a small publisher whose only coder has been holding down a day job elsewhere for most of the company’s lifespan. 
This is a distinctive trait most people are not happy with and something people try to combat with checkpoint system. No matter how you slice it, getting thrown all the way to the start because of several wrong choices is not a unique experience that enhances the reading process, it makes all it feel like an obnoxious time-waster.
I’ve gotten beheaded thrice in CoG games. First time in Sabres of Infinity, with checkpoints. Second time, Hero of Kendrickstone, which had none. Third time, Sins of the Sires, which, again, had none. The only game that didn’t drown my desire to play further in the sea of immediate and utter frustration was Sabres and its checkpoint system. It didn’t hinder me, it let me experiment more freely, it saved me from the joy of replaying everything again and, mayhaps, getting beheaded three steps away from the finish line once again.
It isn’t a good uniqie trait.
I’m not at all questioning that you dislike it, or saying that you’re wrong to do so. But I don’t think you, or I, or anyone but CoG has the data to back up a claim about “most people.”