Legit the only thing I want from you guys, is allowing saves mid game, at any point. Let me play how I like to play, and stop forcing the ‘no save scumming’ mentality, thank you.
19 Likes
Omg finally… As someone who struggles with ocd, being able to finally clean my saves is a huge gift. Wonderful news. 
As for save systems, checkpoints etc. I will say that while I do like choices being important, it also sucks having to restart altogether (for games with game over mechanics) or even miss on the option you wanted because, like me, you have buttery fingers and sometimes pick the wrong one (or maybe your screen doesn’t pick up the click at all.)
I love rereading games to explore new paths, but sometimes accidents happen so I’d rather not go all the way back (which is why I indulge in code diving instead.)
3 Likes
A “Dashingdon style” save system is actually one in which players can save their progress at any point (not just at author-selected check points) and later load that save at will. Unlike chapter checkpoints, it requires Javascript edits, and can’t be included in published games. Including it would require a rethink of the line on back buttons, since it’s pretty much the same thing.
I doubt that refund-requesters who speed-read the whole thing within the hour outnumber refund-requesters who make a choice they dislike, realize they’d have to re-read the whole game to alter it, and rage-quit. And I’d be surprised if either group is substantial enough that CoG should be making major business decisions with them in mind.
The real business question this raises is I think not about refund rates but whether the core experience CoG sells would be compromised by adding a save-at-will function. The answer isn’t obvious; we can see from this thread that CoG readers disagree on what the core experience is and/or whether a save point would affect it.
Like I said last time we talked about this,
As a way to get more data on customer preferences, I suggested that CoG might want to give Hosted Games authors the option to add save-at-will to their games. HGs aren’t bound to deliver anything resembling a “core experience”. Giving authors the option to add save slots would give us a point of comparison, both within HGs and between HGs and CoGs, on this key business model question.
(Also, on that thread I voiced my support for the kind of checkpoint-facilitating changes that @Doriana-Gray is asking for above.)
9 Likes
One thing that’s important to keep in mind: the casual majority of players to these games have no idea the difference between a Hosted Games title and a Choice of Games one. They all look the same. This is especially true on Steam, where there’s no omnibus you have to load up to search for games.
So if you added a save-at-will feature on one game, you’d soon get upset reviewers expecting it across all titles and platforms. I do think Hosted Games is great for experimentations, but I don’t think this one would be wise one to touch.
Given the increasing length of these games, I do think a checkpoint system of some kind will become an inevitable need.
5 Likes
We already have upset reviewers expecting it across all titles and platforms. 
I take your point, but as an author who wants to keep my midgame checkpoints but not introduce save-at-will in my own games, I wouldn’t want CoG to shift to a uniform policy where all games have to have save-at-will. I’d like it to be an authorial choice. Those always risk attracting some negative reviews, but when did that stop us?
Absolutely, but that doesn’t stop CoG from having different policies for the different labels.
13 Likes
Too long... I didn't want to take up half the board!
That article reeks of authoritarianism. “You shouldn’t be able to play the game the way you want, because I want you to suffer!” And it’s very off putting.
It’s really no different than the way some whiners get online and complain about the “easy” mode being offered in some games (“If you aren’t playing on insanity, then why bother? You suck and shouldn’t play!”). Players trying to dictate how other people play need to get a life. Game designers who want to dictate how people play need to lay off the authoritarian attitude and consider exactly why people want the ability to save or rollback.
There are games I have just given up on because they’re too aggravating, too time-consuming to reload and try to fix my character that got screwed up because of one wrong choice, and I would rather spend my time doing something more enjoyable–like banging my head into a wall. There are other games where I’ve looked up guides after starting and deciding the game would piss me off if I didn’t have it.
Are game designers/authors going to shit all over guides next? Or are those fine if the author provides them and charges for them? Are they going to try to block us from downloading the code and finding our way ourselves? If not, why are these things different, other than the fact that it saves players some time to hit “back” instead of stopping the game, looking up the code, finding a guide, or quitting the game and using the save app for Steam?
These games are getting longer and longer, and while the save point system is nice, sometimes the only way to “fix” a run is to go back to an even earlier point. Often, it’s a choice between starting over again to fix it or saying, “screw this game, I’m done”. Or downloading the code and reading it that way before bothering to play the game–I’ve done that more than once.
So while I get the whole, “I’m the author and I want people to suffer” attitude (actually, I don’t because I’m not a sadist, but to each their own), it would be nice if they thought of the players from a different perspective: do you want a higher number of people to play your game all the way through and play it their way, which means allowing rollbacks, or would you prefer they stop halfway through and never look at it again? Because, really, that’s what it often boils down to. Not everyone is willing to “suffer” playing what they find to be an unenjoyable story, and will either find a way to get the path that suits them (and their character) best or they’ll say “fuck it” and quit.
I agree with this completely. The back button would be better than what we have now, but it still doesn’t solve the problem. Same with the checkpoints–they’re better than nothing, but unless we have multiple checkpoints where we can save and go back to older ones, the save system or back button is still needed.
Exactly. And this is what I was getting at above. If I find a game unsatisfying because my take on a response is that it’s serious but it turns out to be sarcastic and my inability to understand the author’s definition of personality traits causes my character to become something I didn’t want, then I’m probably not going to play it again. Or I’m going to quit halfway through and maybe check the code and use it as a guide for every freaking choice I make. If I think the game is worth it, anyway. If not, I’ll just drop the game and never look at it again.
There are some times I want to play a character that want to watch the world burn and has a horrible end (or a good one, if it’s allowed). Most times, I just want to play a character I can relate to and be able to control who they are–skills and personality–and don’t want to constantly have to go back to make a badass MC or, alternatively, completely incompetent buffoon.
I mean, let’s get real here: it hurts no one for a player to be able to have a save system or back button. No other players are effected and the author is getting people to play their game and getting the money for the purchases. To want to control players past that is kind of petty.
You talk about OCD…
When I like a game well enough to make multiple characters for it, I’ll download the code, create a macro in notepad++ that will change all the variables to match my character’s name, RO genders, etc, then dump it into a word file and make a blank “playthrough” by leaving in the choices that may fit and removing the ones that don’t, along with sections of code that aren’t applicable to the character.
I have nice pretty word docs for about seven different games now…
13 Likes
I will look into it! Once I’ve got a simple version working I’ll add it to the checkpoint template so others can grab and use it as desired
3 Likes
Right? I don’t take any of these games seriously I play for fun! I also hate replaying so i always try for a “perfect “ run the first few times i play a game before setting it aside.
Anyway, so happy about this. This feature has been a long tome coming.
2 Likes
I think you’re totally misreading that article by thinking that “agonizing choices” mean suffering. The author clearly loves that particular agony. So do lots of people I’ve played ChoiceScript games with.
One person’s genuine head-against-wall frustration is what draws another person to the game. You can’t make games/books for everybody, and if you try, you’ll probably end up with something where the experience isn’t distinctive enough to be memorable.
I have bounced – hard – off games that other people love with a passion. Dark Souls, for example. Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings. The Binding of Isaac. I found all of them immensely frustrating and unfun. And yet what I experienced as frustration and suffering are exactly the features that have drawn big audiences to those games. Their designers know the kind of experience they’re trying to create. I’m not going to blast them because it wasn’t for me.
Now, it’s totally fair game to ask CoG and its authors to make a player experience that’s more to your taste. But some of us are going to say no – not because we’re sadists, but because we enjoy things that (apparently) frustrate you, and we’re making games for people whose tastes are closer to our own. Can we agree to disagree?
9 Likes
Of course. It would be a boring world if everyone agreed about everything!
That game made me want to destroy things. I didn’t last long at all and have never touched a Dark Souls game again.
I agree with this, too. But I think a save system should be an option for the authors to have (in case they do want to make a more enjoyable experience). If they choose not to use it, that’s their prerogative. Were it implemented, I’d be more likely to take a chance on a game I wasn’t sure fit my tastes, since it would make going through it a bit easier, but I would still buy games without it. I’d just code dive when playing those. 
2 Likes
I’ve added another template to my Savepoint Sample Code thread that includes reloading to chapters of your choice. I’ve done some testing, though I did it fairly swiftly so let me know on that thread if anything’s not right.
7 Likes
I am going to have to say that anyone comparing dark souls to choice of games compeltely misses the mark of both types of games.
The souls series are incredieble generous with savepoints (or bonfire, or whatever the equivilant is in that specific soul game) and further more you are not really punished by failure due to being able to essentially regain your experience point fairly quickly unless you fail twice in a row. And even if you do gaining new exp fast.
Choice games by contrast punishes you harhsly for failure. There is no come back to where you were nor is the replay game fun, since you are most likely just pressing the next button until you reach the choice where you want to make a change - not even reading the text.
The fact of the matter is that 9/10 of these game have no gameplay, which is not a bad thing since hypefocus on the choices, but without a flowchart, savepoint or checkpoint the “correct a mistake” gameplay is press next, press next, press next.
I know that they want us to live with our mistakes, but most do not - and living with a mistake is even less tempting if you cannot reload. The fact of the mattter is that if I speculate that my build is bad due to me miss reading a choice, it is better to reload fast and correct it sooner (thus have to replay a shorter amount of games) rather then sticking with it and getting to an end game where I only have fail, fail harder or fail extra hard as a chocie due to my build.
There is a reason that I have like 50 save points in most ot the otome vn I play. So that if a reach a bad end (or want to reach a bad end), i have option for going back and say. “Hmm… i think it was about here I made a mistake.”. That is a 1000 times better than having to start from the beginning.
Edit, I will say that if of course should be an option at the author preogative, but since most hosted author uses the dashingdon save system in their wip (which have some nasty bugs, so it cannot be directly transferred.) I think many would be thankfull if it at least became an option.
28 Likes
This is very true.
1 Like
Ha. The assumptions at play here aren’t unreasonable, but they’re sure as hell not universal. I feel vastly more “punished” by having to come back and button mash the same monster boss fight for the n-00th time than I do by having to re-read a story I enjoy.
It’s in large part because Hosted Games can be (and often are) written this way that I’ve argued for letting them have a save system. I know some CoG games are also written this way, but they shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be possible to get into a situation where all the outcomes are failure.
3 Likes
Elden Ring is even more generous with saves and friendliness towards new players and it’s a game of the year, reaching recognition we haven’t seen since Bloodborne.
If you squint, there’s also an ‘easy mode’ - if you min max. You can’t really do that with a CoG game because everything is balanced. You can never exploit the system that is being unfair to you - which is what a lot of people find fun about games like this, overcoming problems (hard boss) with solutions (learning their movesets, different builds, minmaxing etc).
You know, it’s not just about the game being hard. There’s a sweet spot between hard-annoying and hard-fun, and maybe that’s different for everybody, but there’s a lot to talk about when it comes to design.
17 Likes
The majority of choice of games are written that way too. In fact I have played one choice game which didn´t fall into this trap.
The only game in this whole lineup which would not have benefitted from a save point is paradox factor and that is because that game in essence is a giant flowchart you jump around in. Giving it a uniqe feel.
There is a reason that ren´´py have rollback, saveslots, quick save and the ever usefull -skip readtext. Just as there is a reason that most walkthrough for VNs is not just “pick a, b an c” for the best ending, but “pick a, b2 and c3” save and then you can pick “d1 for ending it”, “d3” for ending 2 etc.
6 Likes
Maybe we just have different definitions of “fail,” then – because I’ve not played any CoG that made me feel that way. But then the idea of playing for e.g. max Legend Score in Heroes Rise always just made me laugh. I had a perfectly enjoyable story without trying to minmax it.
2 Likes
Sigh, @havenstone it is not just about failing.
Don´t get me wrong, my playthrough of the new heart choice game really soured me on the whole game because of the ending of me failing four to five stats checks in a row, but that was really my fault. I should have restarted sooner instead of “trusting the experience” and “going with my choices”. My bad I forgot how bad it can get in these games if I do not make sure to have a least one stat in 70-80 range and no opposite stat in the 50% range.
But It is also about having to reread stuff you have alreayd read to reach the scenes and endings you have not yet read. That is why I explained how most (good) VN walkthrough works. Sometimes you want to reach the bad endings, but can´t. Sometimes it is just a scene you want to reach, a little choice which you can only reach under superspecific circumstances and just cannot unlock.
The point is no matter how good the first chapter is - on its 10th readthrough in a row it is stale. There is a reason why “skip irenecus dungeon,” was such a popular mod for BG2, no matter how cool that dungeon was it really lost it´s lustre on repeated playthroughs because what people wanted to get to was act2: - the city with all the characters and all the choices and the new stuff they wanted to try, the new romances they had yet to play and the new build they wanted to flex.
And then there is those who do have a specific point of the game which is their favourite. They might only want to reread that specific scene. God know I amongst my 50 saves for most VN also have save which are - just before my favourite part of the story. Just like I have marks in my books, from the chapter or sections I read again and again. Because some parts I do want to reread again and again, some parts I want to try all the choices to, see every bit of dialog because it is just that good, but I don´t want to do it if I have to mindlessly press "next"on 50 pages to reach it. It is just not worth it.
30 Likes
As someone who just spent about fifteen minute staring at the (probably very elegant and actually straightforward) code in @HarrisPS’s example checkpoint thread and going “uhh … huh … hmm … nope, don’t follow this at the moment,” count me as one author who would LOVE to be able to say to the CoG administrative team “switch on the back-end chapter checkpoint option for my game when it launches please.”
Or be able to just use the javascript (I think?) save game code that works in Dashingdon, because even I could figure out how to include that one.
The additional burden of labour being placed on the author (see above for writers talking about how many hours it took to add a bespoke save system), rather than the publisher, is rather unfortunate.
I do think there are several ways that the integrity of a meaningful choice-based title can be maintained alongside a save game system. Some suggestions:
(1). First playthrough has to be done without saves (besides the regular save on quitting out). All players will be forced, at least once, to play a ‘no thumbs in the pages’ run. After that, allow mid-point saving or similar.
(2). Limit saves. As with the Dashingdon save system mentioned above, you allow a few saves per playthrough. Kind of like the older Hitman games where you could only save a couple of times in a level. It’s up to players where they use them, which actually adds a little additional choice tension!
You can even make this a narrative device. If it’s a fantasy game, you’re using one of your limited Stones of Recall or whathaveyou.
(3). A save system is implemented, but choosing to play through without saves is redefined as an ‘iron man’ style run, in the manner of an XCOM or similar. You get an extra special achievement at the end.
(4). Some kind of wild mix of all of the above.
For games that are of substantial length, it does seem rather harsh (and kinda tedious?) to make people start from the beginning whenever they make a potentially minor error.
19 Likes
I mean this genuinely, and understand if you wouldn’t want to go into it or if it was too long ago to remember - but if you have played any of my games, and there were points where the stats became very frustrating, I’d really appreciate hearing where it happened, or if there was general confusion or annoyance I’d love to hear that too, so I can improve for next time (on relevant threads - I don’t want to derail here!)
In general there is a lot of editorial focus on making sure CoG and HC games have fun stories no matter what the stat situation is but I totally understand the difficulty of failing one time after the next - and the fatigue that can come from replaying early sections over and over. (I had Dungeon-Be-Gone installed for most of my BG2 playthroughs once I’d played a certain number of times, heh.)
It would definitely be great to be able to do it more simply When I have a minute I will add some comments to the template as right now it’s very bare-bones without much explanation!
4 Likes