'Saving the Day': Save Systems and the Real Life of Gamers

One aspect of game design that many people point to when wailing about the lack of difficulty in many games these days is the save system. Older games, they argue, doled out saves like precious gems, and thus made the whole experience much more challenging. 'Where's the difficulty when you can save wherever and whenever you want?' However, as designer David Sirlin argues in a Gamasutra article, this is a false dichotomy: "We can allow the player to stop playing without excessive penalty and make a challenging game. It's just a matter of defining what 'saving' actually means." In short, there are plenty of examples of challenging games that don't punish the player for having other things going on in their life that don't allow for structuring a day around gaming:

A save system should allow the player to stop playing at any time, allow the player to pick up where he or she left off with as close to zero replaying as possible, and save as automatically and seamlessly as possible, so the player will not forget to do it.

Saving should be treated as one of the player's natural rights, not an earned privilege or a game mechanic around which to make strategic decisions.

The design space we have to create new games is so unthinkably large that we lose virtually nothing by restricting ourselves to designs with friendly save game systems that don't presume to override the real-life needs of players.

I usually wind up gaming on the fly — a little bit here, a little bit there — and the inability to save 'meaningful' progress quickly is one of those things that irks me. I sometimes resort to leaving my console on, wondering the whole time I'm out of the house if the damn thing is going to overheat and my house, possessions, and dog are going to go up in flames; I don't really need to be punished because I can't schedule my day around gaming. It's an interesting article and rebuttal to some of the 'difficulty discussions' that have been going on lately — Sirlin pretty successfully argues his point that making save systems that don't punish the player for having to put the game down aren't (necessarily) to blame for the lack of difficulty people are grousing about.

http://kotaku.com/5046424/saving-the...life-of-gamers

yes, an old sega game was a TON harder with zero saves

how many of us have played sonic or ghouls n ghost's, or even ghostbusters from start to dead finish?

how many hours did that take

how many of us dreaded dinner or bed time trying to do these tasks?

save games do make the games easier in that regard, how many of us play those same games on emulators with a save state, so when we have to tend to the kids, or make dinner were not forced to loose our progress

in my busy adult life i want, almost need to be able to save at will, on systems like the psp this should be a given, i cant tell the train to hold on another 45 seconds as im running up to a save point in GOW, i have to get up and move, and prey that the battery does not get jarred loose before i get a chance to save

well made games do not suffer from that ability, just like our emulated buddies its the game that makes it a challenge

not forcing yourself to schedule life around a programmers schedule

I personally try to only rely on automatic checkpoint in a game. The only exception is when I have to close the game to do something else, but never to skip a challenging part of the game.

My problem with today's saves isn't in when and where in fact I would love to be able to save anywhere. It's the fact that they are now safety checks. You create a save and are safe in the knowledge if you die you go right back there. What needs to happen is to implement 2 types of saves (which is already seen) perma saves which are your fallback saves and Quick saves which should be deleted upon loading. If all games had TES's style of saving there would be no challenge as one could easily abuse the quick save quick load keys to make sure every single action turns out in your favour.

Restricted saving rights was a lame way to increase difficulty. People should be able to save when they please, sure it can be abused but that simply can't be avoided.

Being able to save anywhere is a necessity in modern games, going back to restricted saving would be a major move backwards for games. I have no problem with replay-limiting (delete once you open them) saves for RPG's, though I don't honestly see the necessity, but in something like a FPS - replaying a situation over and over again to get it just right and use the least resources is most of the fun in it. Playing Blood using quicksaves to try to go through the entire game without taking any damage is way more fun, for me, than just trying to play the game normally (it's not possible, I do have to take damage sometimes as a result of pre-programed situations, but I could always finish the level with 200% health, at least - and it's fun to try). Same for Quake. What people do with saves is their business. If they use them in a way that "spoils the game experience" that's their choice and their gameplay experience. If people want a harder game, they can make themselves not use the available saving - but there's no need nowadays to ever force that upon people.

I agree totally with David Sirling. As long as you grow up. your life gets harder, and you have less time to play. The last thing I want is to restart the same level again and again to get acces to the first save point.

Difficulty can be made in other different ways.

Yeah, being able to save anywhere can really suck because there's no feeling of danger or self-preservation.
I like the games that "save and quit" by saving anywhere and then quitting the game. Then, when the player loads the game, it deletes the save. I've only seen this done on a few console games, but it was still a nifty way to conveniently save at any time so the player could leave and do something else, but did not allow the player to just save and retry from the exact-same spot over and over. That's just boring.
I do hate going through a lot of stuff and then losing it all in a game over, though. I especially hate games that FORCE the player to make his own saves at any time, without providing auto-saves or checkpoints or anything like that.
I like being able to save in games that make you do lots of stuff, because it sucks to get a game over that says "All the time you took to do stuff in the last half hour was completely wasted because now we're going to take you back really freaking far."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cerepol

My problem with today's saves isn't in when and where in fact I would love to be able to save anywhere. It's the fact that they are now safety checks. You create a save and are safe in the knowledge if you die you go right back there. What needs to happen is to implement 2 types of saves (which is already seen) perma saves which are your fallback saves and Quick saves which should be deleted upon loading. If all games had TES's style of saving there would be no challenge as one could easily abuse the quick save quick load keys to make sure every single action turns out in your favour.

---

I pretty much agree with this guy. I don't like saving on my own, that's what checkpoints are for. But every now and then I'll turn on a game, without looking at the time first to make sure I've got enough time to play. I like the idea of two save types.

I certainly prefer games that allow saving at almost any time and picking up where you left off but not doing so permanently (a practice known as quicksaving), this allows me to do little bit of gaming in my daily life instead of choosing not to play a game because doing so will become a commitment that will last until I manage to get from one checkpoint to the next.

As for checkpoints, I love them, as long as they are available before each obstacle, allowing gamers to not repeat the same obstacle while attempting to overcome the next obstacle. There has to be a healthy balance between challenge and allowing gamers to not be stuck in an endless loop.