Alright, so—looking at the thread as a whole, pretty much no one has said “giving the option for authors to add or toggle on a checkpoint save systems (that’s not too hard to implement) for their games is bad”.
We can all agree on that right? To me that should be enough to end the debate at this point and request a response for cogs feelings on the matter.
To sum it up, I’m also gonna add in a poll. I know polls at the end of threads often get buried so please link back to this in intervals if you want voters to it.
(And yes I know the forums are a minority of users, and yes they are based on the more fervent fans—but really—based on the courses I’ve taken on statistics a poll with a few hundred clicks still says something. And it definitely says something more than the people guessing on the attitudes of people who play these games who are or are not here).
I want authors to have the choice to implement a checkpoint save system (that is reasonably simple to implement):
Yes
No
0voters
Answering yes does not mean you don’t want a backbutton, or other save systems, and saying no does not mean you do.
It depends what you mean by a checkpoint. If you mean a save system like DashingDon’s where the player can save at any point, then no. If you mean chapter checkpoints (or checkpoints otherwise chosen by the author) like those in Parliament of Knives or @HarrisPS’s games, then yes.
Alright, my two words about what I want and don’t want.
A simple way to add checkpoints/savepoints, preferably something as easy to use as a *gosave_save1 function.
I would NOT want a rollback function as a player nor implement it as an author because, in my opinion, the only tension in a game like this without reflexes or similar is to have to live with your choice. I do understand the annoyance of misclicks (I do that) and the fear of making the wrong choice to ruin a playthrough (which is why I want checkpoint saves so the reload can be easy).
Another reason why I don’t like a rollback function is that it restricts tension/consequence/effect to the initial choice. If you write a more complex story, chances are the consequences of that first choice will send you down a dialogue tree with more choices where you won’t see the end outcome until several choices later. So the ability to rollback a click might send people to less desirable storylines. I know this sounds weird, but here is an example:
Summary
We have two characters arguing about something. The NPC is mad about something the MC did in the past. The player gets three options how to react to this. They are 1) Say sorry and regret 2) Stonewall and deny something was wrong 3) Shout back about something bad the NPC did and escalate the argument and 4) Walk away.
If a player is worried about hurting their relationship with the NPC, they might pick option 1) to smooth things over. This will put the player on a path where eventually the apology is accepted and everyone has grown closer as a result. However, the first bit of text behind that choice might be the NPC being angry and say something like “do you think you can fix this by being sorry? Tough luck, it doesn’t work like that.” And then some more choices where they talk things through ending in a hug and reconciliation. A player might be like OH NO misleading choice! And go back and pick 4) instead to at least not make things worse. Because the initial reaction was not an immediate resolution, they might miss out on the very thing they actually want. And, they’ll probably blame the game for it too.
This is why I feel that the ability for an author to be able to easily place save/checkpoints in their story is the best of both worlds. It would enable the author above to place a checkpoint before the big important argument, and the player would feel that no matter how badly it goes in the middle, if I don’t like it, I can at least go back to the start and try a new path. And might still feel free to explore the different paths to the end rather than micromanaging every single choice as a separate scene.
The poll isn’t well phrased for the contention at hand.
The thing we’re taking issue with is a back button. Checkpoints are already possible and have been implemented, even in my own work. There’s nothing stopping authors from doing it already.
I think that was one of the first conclusions I got to, if CoG doesnt want the player to choose if they will use saves or not, they should give it to the authors.
What we discussed in the beginning of the thread was for cog to add an easier checkpoint system for authors to implement, like, for example what @malinryden discusses above.
You are very welcome to make your own poll about back buttons.
Uh, no? Authors can add save systems if they want to, my point is that it should be easier for them to do so, I think authors shouldnt be burdened with the work to put a save system because CoG doesnt want to do it themselves.
“Make midgame checkpoint saves easier for authors to code” seems to be pretty much a consensus ask. “Make save-at-will possible, like it is with the CJW/Dashingdon save slot system” is what’s currently not possible in published games, and much more contentious.
And yet we don’t have a response from cog. I wanted to be able to present clear evidence of what the community wants and hope to induce a response and possibly a feature from that. As the thread was to ask for new features, not to discuss hypothetical ones.
I’d like a back button or a save from anywhere button.
I’d frankly be willing to settle for a fully implemented in-engine checkpoint system that requires much less repetition on subsequent runs for me to see all the available content and no extra work for authors to implement. I feel like that would be at least a reasonable middle ground most of us could settle on even if we can’t come to terms on the more contentious points.
It’s been less than 48 hours. They just got done with one major project (deleting saves, for which they’ve had as thanks a bunch of “Gee, about time!” posts). They haven’t had time to consider and discuss the possibilities. Of course they haven’t responded yet. The most they could say at this point is “We hear you and we’re thinking about it.”
Well, let’s not hold our breaths. They’ve been pretty silent on this for years now. (For anyone wondering/speculating about a behind the scenes campaign to get authors to defend the ancient FAQ on this…no, I’ve had no affirmation of any kind from CoG, and as far as I know they just wish I’d shut up about the issue.)
But they’re clearly quietly picking up on the common asks/complaints anyway, so hopefully if they agree we’ll see a change.
I have a friend who quit playing Baldur’s Gate 3 because the ability to quicksave mid-conversation and mid-battle led to him just doing tedious save scumming of everything.
It’s just one of those things that hits people. If you give some people the chance to obsessively savescum through things, a lot of people will do it even when it makes things less enjoyable. You can say “just don’t do it!” all you want, but a lot of people will end up doing it if the option is there, even if it ends up making things worse for their overall experience.
There’s a whole lot of good stories and fun outcomes I’ve gotten in these games that I’d never have seen if you let me just savescum through choices until I got things ‘right’.
They’ve been pretty silent on this for years now. (For anyone wondering/speculating about a behind the scenes campaign to get authors to defend the ancient FAQ on this…no, I’ve had no affirmation of any kind from CoG, and as far as I know they just wish I’d shut up about the issue.)