Consolidated "Saves in Choice of Games and Hosted Games" Thread

Meta
62

Which has always been an idiotic argument. I think people should be allowed to play the way they want and find the most fun, even if that includes cheating (which is a big taboo in the gamer society nowadays) and, to a degree, here as well.

Some of you who frequent this forum have been victims to the “follow the society norms or else” mentality IRL, though in other subjects other than videogames, and I’m willing to bet you didn’t like it one bit. So why are you supporting this sort of behaviour now with your - play my way or go away - elitist attitude?

5 Likes
63

I might have missed the posts where people said/implied “you’re not a real gamer if…” or “play my way or go away” here on the forums–could you point me to which posts you are responding to? Thanks!

1 Like
64

It’s not directly expressed but it’s the feeling some of us get after reading some of the arguments against the save system - because they prefer and support the idea of forcing the player to deal with their choices as they would in real life, which is, once you do or say something, you can’t go back on it and therefore have to “man up” and deal with the consequences.

I’m not against the idea itself but I don’t think that alone is a very good reason as to why a save system can’t be implemented. Basically, what you’re saying (not you personally but people who defend this argument), is that your method of gaming is the superior choice because it promotes realism and immersion, and if they don’t agree with it then it’s their problem. Just because a save system exists doesn’t mean you can’t stick by your choices if that is indeed your prefered style, but for anyone else who thinks otherwise they are given a choice to go back if they so desire.

PS: By that logic (anti-saving) we shouldn’t be allowed to see the stats either as it doesn’t promote immersion nor realism, given some of us are constantly keeping an eye on the stats to see whether or not our choices made an impact on in a way we deem optimal rather than just “playing the game” and is one of the reason why people feel the need to restart or reload.

9 Likes
65

I would guess that pretty much everyone in this thread would reject the notion that they believe their method of gaming is superior or that people are not real gamers if they play with saves. Certainly that’s not something I see reflected in this thread. Pretty much people are saying what their own experience is and what they would want for themselves and what contributes to their own experience. I like how people are couching stuff in the first person rather being prescriptive.

I think there’s a really interesting discussion here about design and how how CoGs have evolved over the years, and how these pieces of IF bridge story and game.

I’ve seen that less than people noting that the presence of a save feature can, for some people, present an irresistible temptation to be compulsive about saving, reloading, saving, reloading.

3 Likes
66

You are correct and I think that is probably one of the hidden arguments as to why some people are against it, because they can’t resist the temptation and therefore would rather remove it entirely or see that it doesn’t exist, anything other than dealing with it. I know that frustration because I can be a save-scummer as well (someone who reloads a lot in a short time span) in some videogames and if these games had a save system I would probably abuse it as well in some cases but that is a choice I make. It’s 100x more frustrating wanting to reload and not being able to.

The benefits of having a checkpoint far outweight the cons IMO.

9 Likes
67

Do you think there’s a reasonable analogy to the argument over whether there ought to be an “easy” difficulty setting for Dark Souls?

I don’t mean to suggest that having savepoints is playing a CoG on “easy”; this is one of those arguments about “if it’s there I may be tempted to use it even at times when I shouldn’t.”

68

IMO the thing with Dark Souls is that it has been branded as a “hardcore” game, it’s fame derives from the fact it doesn’t hold your hand and you’re forced to learn from your mistakes and that is what sets it apart from others. It’s a game that was made with a particular type of gamer in mind, it was never meant to be inclusive of the wider audience so to speak.

Personally I support the idea of having an easier difficulty because that way it can attract other players that wouldn’t otherwise touch it, either because they’re intimidated, don’t have the time to dedicate to it, have some kind of physical limitation (elderly people for example) or simply can’t be arsed with the default setting. But that would ruin it’s image of an “hardcore” game.

Just because there’s an easier setting doesn’t mean all the other difficulties got lowered to accomodate that change. Interestingly enough, if, on the other hand, they made an even more difficult setting, then I’m willing to bet nobody would have been bothered. In principle, the game remains the same but it wouldn’t be considered a “hardcore game made for hardcore players” anymore. And I think that’s what the elitist-inclined gamers worry about.

I believe gamers in general don’t really care about how you play your game, only elitists feel the need to elevate themselves above the rest and games like Dark Souls tend to attract those the most.

5 Likes
69

Yah I agree it would be nice not to start over again if I accidentally kill someone by my wrong choices. Pls try and add it. No pressure!

70

The reason for why Dark Souls has only one difficult is to promote a culture of belonging among the players. The notes you can leave to others also help to create this culture. That everyone has played the same game means they can talk with each other on equal ground when discussing the game. If there was a harder or easier mode, such a discussion would be impossible. But you are essentially right that it is an elitist idea at its core. And given the concept of the game, if it was more inclusive it wouldn’t have any sort of following at all. Business wise it’s the right call for them to have made. Not everything should be for everyone. It’d be pretty frustrating if everything was the same grey mass made by a committee.

And as such, as each COG and HG is pretty much made by one person, it’s up to them to decide whether they want saving or not. To order the creator around is to kill their desire to create. I’m sure most don’t care one way or the other, but the few that do wouldn’t bother creating their game if they couldn’t do it by their own terms.

1 Like
71

I would like to take this opportunity to promote a save culture.
Thank you for saving.

1 Like
72

Honestly, Dark Souls is nothing compared to CoG games, or any game without save.

Once you die there, you just go back to the last bonfire, which is like the last autosave. When you die in a CoG game with no checkpoints, you go ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE START OF THE GAME. That’s a lot more hardcore. But is that fun?

Dark Souls just puts you back close to where you died, giving you more than enough time to change your strategy, try again or learn from your failure. It doesn’t wipe your character when you die. If it was like that, I doubt most people would bother playing.

The only reason I think CoG gets some slack on that is that you can try to rush through by picking the choices you did before without reading. But when you force the player to do that, what’s even the point? Why not just give him a bonfire instead? (an autosave)

11 Likes
73

I fully agree but there’s another aspect to reflect upon within the same context: nearby me is a shop which happens to sell chocolate. It would be reasonable to say that I’m consumed by a never-ending compulsion to have chocolate. Somehow, though, I’m able to avoid spending every penny I have on chocolate, despite my wholly demonic lust for the aforementioned.

It’s the choice of the individual to indulge! Player agency and control is much more important these days than ever. :tophat:

11 Likes
74

How about allowing only a single save slot to a game? I think this would discourage save scumming and give the later stages of the story more weight.

For example, when we get to the midpoint of a COG/HG game with this feature, the player is presented with a very significant plot changing choice. The player can then choose to either save at that point, but their previous save would be overwritten, or continue on, knowing that their previous save, a few chapters ago, will be safe. Of course, the same dilemma will be presented to the player as the end draws near.

This still gives weight to the player’s choices the further they progress, but at least you can go back to the point where you think you messed up. If you were wrong, well, I guess even choosing the save point is a significant choice in itself.

Please point out any pros and cons to this!

1 Like
75

I like the current, standard 3 slot plugin, but I guess that’s me having gotten used to it.
I think three slots in a 600k words game still encourages a certain prudence.

3 Likes
76

Alas, now you can only buy one chocolate product a day - the shopkeepers decided to keep the clients from spoiling their experience by having too much of it :upside_down_face:

3 Likes
77

I don’t know that it’s all that hidden–it’s the argument made explicitly in the FAQ, and I’ve referred to it a couple of times upthread.

And I don’t think ideas about what’s “elite” need to come into it, for Dark Souls or CoG. A game tries to create a particular kind of experience, in part through the difficulty of getting a good or ideal end. That experience will inevitably be more fun for some players than others. It doesn’t mean that the ones who enjoy it should (or do) see themselves as an elite for doing so.

I know a chocolate place in Boston that cut my friend off after he’d had two of their large dark hot chocolates for just that reason. :slight_smile:

7 Likes
78

Yes, creative freedom is always a good thing

But it can be argued that games are an art form, and the thing about art is that it’s meaningless without an audience. Therefore, it’s reasonable to say any artist or game developer should at least attempt to some what cater to their players

1 Like
79

Sure, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their desire to create. Rather, I’d say, it’s for commercial than artistic reasons. Or I suppose both. Do what you think is best and if it doesn’t detract from the whole, cater what you can, but don’t let catering interfere with the product as a whole. I’d say catering is a nice term, since it implies that you’re displaying and giving service on how to best consume the product. People will like or dislike your product regardless of catering, but the catering will make it far easier to enjoy and more palatable if done properly. No amount of saves will make you like a game you otherwise hate, or hate a game you otherwise love.

80

I’m going to try and explain it in a clearer way - It’s ok if you prefer to stick to your choices, it’s ok if you don’t like or want to use saves, the problem here (IMO) is that your wording makes it sound like nobody else is allowed to use saves because YOU think your prefered playstyle makes for a better gaming experience and that experience is what everyone should strive for. That is where the bad mojo is coming from.

If you had told me - “I don’t like the idea of a saving system because it’s mere existance will be too big of a temptation to not use once implemented” Or “I don’t like saves because X, but that’s just my opinion and at the end of the day I can always opt for not using it” - you’d state your disagreement but you wouldn’t be shutting everyone else who thinks otherwise.

The impression I’m getting from the anti-saving side is that you’re shutting us off and not leaving any room for a consensus or middle ground - it’s either your way or the highway. You DON’T have to use the save system once implemented but it would please those who want.

I feel like the strongest driving force against the saving system isn’t necessarily technical limitations but self-imposed barriers, what some believe to provide “a better gaming experience” that caters to their style - either because the company can’t or won’t do it (even though some games come with checkpoints), that the authors shouldn’t be forced to code that in even though most demos already come with a save system up, etc.

Just my 2 cents.

14 Likes
81

Seriously…? Like, seriously…? :sweat_smile:

That would be like pizza without cheese, or making use of a top-notch grill to roast nothing but vegetables.

That’s the -whole- point of the game, IMHO, for most people who adore this kind of game - starting and restarting the game, again, and again, and again, as much as needed, so you can completely explore, read and taste everything it has to offer, also being that what, IMHO, again, adds value to the whole pack. It’s even funnier when you kinda know the placement of your previous choices and can dash through them until a given point you wanna fix.

Single-playthrough and read-once-and-forget mindsets are not really well-aligned or favor this kind of game, at all, it just… I don’t know, goes against its nature and purpose?

Of course, if some people actually enjoy doing and seeing everything the game offers at once for a couple of hours in a game like this and uninstalling right after, like the average Telltale game… to each their own! But… I don’t think the extra effort on CYOA games would be worth simply for the sake of watering down the beer.

There are other text-based games out there that make good use of saves, but, they’re -completely- different in structure, concept and style from Co/HG’s, and what works in some, won’t always work @ others, CoG or not.

Edit.: Geesus, apparently this is a “saves pls!” topic solely for the “saves pls!” people to discuss or share their views about oh how so very much abhorrently condescending it is to start a game all over or enjoy that; don’t know why I bothered trying to bring up my view on it. My only point was that while a save option could benefit whoever wants it while not make a difference for people who don’t care (bringing up a reason as to why some people, myself included, don’t, because people play the game the way they prefer to), it MAY not be entirely viable depending on how complicated it would be, for the sake of what MAYBE some people may perceive as impatience, that’s all. :roll_eyes: Plus, I don’t know how people can say it takes -hours- to replay a run when you can just dash through the options until the point you wanna reach, specially on a phone app; you don’t need to re-read what you already have.