Poll: Saving game - how, when, where, how often?

Gameplay
#104

@ProkyBrambora:
Autosave systems are IMHO always “badly” designed. They are a mechanical things that work in some standard, one-size-fits all way. As such, they’re never good fits for most situations. Further, the fewer times autosaves happen (as in based on widely separated checkpoints), the more progress is lost between them. OTOH, the more frequent the autosaves, the more computer assets are tied up dealing with the save file instead of running the game itself.

I also believe that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make an autosave system “well-timed” in a “living world” type setting where NPCs are all doing their own things all the time. It’s relatively easy if the NPCs only “exist” when interacting with the player, but when they’re all running around interacting with each other constantly, there’s no way to predict when and where “good” places to autosave with them might be.

In development right now is a “low fantasy/realistic” game called Sui Generis and its prequel/tech demo Exanima. This game claims to have an up-to-the-second autosave and that’s all. Normally, I wouldn’t play such a game, no matter how good the rest of it was, because of this (you can no doubt tell I’m fundamentally opposed to not allowing players to save at will :D) . However, in this case, your character can come back from the dead, which makes him unique in the game world and a lot of the story is built around this ability. This is intriguing enough for me to enjoy this game. But KCD is set in the same world we live in, where permadeath always applies. So this system won’t work for it.

1 Like
#105

I could imagine a system where you would have:

  1. autosaves determined by progress through specific gameplay points

  2. player-determined saves that would be bound with Henry taking a short rest, available at specific places (by fireplaces located around the game + the game might possibly enable you to learn to create temporary fireplaces, if you bring some necessary items with you…)

  3. a limited amount of quicksaves that would replenish by resting

The exact amount of save slots available for each save variant would be determined by the pre-selected difficulty setting. One may enable a number of slots for each type (Easy), another only one slot for each (Normal) and some harder difficulties might merge the autosave and the player-determined save into one save file (Hard) and possibly even exclude the quicksave function altogether (Medieval)…
How about that?

#106

It’s a single player game. If you don’t want infinite tries, then don’t give yourself that option. However, don’t vote to take that option from others.

There needs to be an option when you start a game to play the way you like. (save anytime, auto save only, only save when logging out, etc.)

2 Likes
#107

Regardless of the chosen system, I think there should be an OK/CANCEL dialog when you select the New Game option. I’ve now accidentally clicked it 3 time, restarting my game, while adjusting settings in the main ESC menu.

#108

I went for auto saves only. I don’t mind any of the 3 but I don’t think you would need to save more often than every 10mins or so. I wouldn’t want it to be too easy. The challenge would be fun

#109

People have a life, you can’t force them to loose (and repeat) several minutes of gameplay.

2 Likes
#110

I think a lot of you are completely missing the point of this.

I agree it should be an option you choose when you start the game.

So right there, everyone against it should back out of the discussion as you have nothing to offer (not to sound harsh, but, let’s be honest, you no longer have an opinion to offer since you’re against it! :slight_smile: If it’s an OPTION, let the people who want to discuss the particulars of this option. Those who are against it just muddle the discussion. That’s my honest opinion, not trying to sound rude!)

The REASONING behind having something like this implemented is because it puts more weight behind the decisions you make and how you approach things. Most people, when given an opportunity will save whenever they can, as often as they can, especially before making big decisions, choices, etc…

BUT, these same people, if given the option, would prefer if they COULDN’T save whenever they wanted, because they WANT the game to force them to be more strategic, more tactful, more mindful of the decisions and choices they make. Essentially, certain situations where you may approach something gun’s blazing (so to speak), if you knew your choices held more weight, you might plan or strategize your decision making a lot more, because you were well aware of the greater consequences. You might approach things with much more caution, etc. etc.

Basically, the game is forcing you to play more “realistic”, instead of playing careless, unnecessarily fearless, etc. Some people want this option because they would normally not be disciplined on their own. That’s why the developers should consider implementing it. Don’t underestimate the lack of discipline gamers have. So many will cheat, exploit any flaw in a game, etc., to get a leg ahead, but A LOT of these same people wish there were measures in place so they weren’t tempted to do so.

3 Likes
#111

Pengman19, With all due respect, screw that noise.

YOU may like that option. So, play the way YOU want. It’s a single player game. We all get to play the way WE want to play.

Don’t give me any B.S. about other player’s lack of discipline. Give me a fragging break.

I want the option to save when I want. I have a hectic life and need to save on the fly. I don’t want to be bound by your playstyle.

If you lack the will to set a simple option before you play your game, that is on you. Seek help and leave the rest of us out of your life choices.

Thank you.

2 Likes
#112

As someone has already mentioned earlier on.
Give options.
Easy: save where and whenever you want.
Medium: auto saves at parts where you might fail and die etc (or every 30 mins).
Hard: treat it like real life, if you die you lose everything and start again.

Just gives a bit of variety.

#113

Frak, I think you missed what I said. One of the very first things I said was that it should be an OPTION you select when you first start. Please re-read my original post. OF COURSE it should be an option. My original post was reiterating the fact that HOW this option should be implemented should be left to discussed by those who would utilize this option, because everything else is noise.

#114

Pen, I guess “it” was not clear to me. The way the rest of your post went, I thought you meant “it” should be the no save option.

Cool beans. It’s all good. :smile:

#115

when the continue option will be fixed? Next alpha patch?

#116

Yeah, it’s all good. No one should be forced to play that way, but there are certain people who like the challenge of the GAME forcing them to play a certain way (if they selected that option at the beginning of their campaign).

#118

The thing is that devs are trying to make the player to live with his mistakes.

Because the game is supposed to be realistic but if you save/load every time you are not completely satissfied with the result, the work they are putting into the realism is waste of energy.

1 Like
#119

It it were really a question of ‘realism’ then not only should you not be able to save at all, but if you die, the game should immediately delete itself from your harddrive and refuse to re-install. After all, it’s not like you can ‘pause’ real life and come back to it whenever you want, and you can’t just re-start your life from a certain point if you die in reality. There’s no point in trying to create a ‘realistic’ save system, because a save system in itself is inherently unrealistic. What next: let’s get rid of graphics options because you can’t make things brighter or lower-res in real life? Get rid of character and inventory screens, because you don’t really get menus popping up in your field of vision whenever you try to change your clothing?

And the ‘save-scumming’ argument ignores two important points: Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, some people actually like to play this way. If I want to re-load every time I’m not completely satisfied with a particular outcome, that really is no one else’s business but mine. Secondly, there are all sorts of other reasons why you might want to repeatedly re-load from a particular point - such as wanting a screenshot of that exact moment, or wanting to try out different outcomes without having to replay the whole damn game.

If the devs have their heart set on making the player ‘live with his mistakes’, the solution is simple: Take a cue from the Witcher series and have consequences that don’t show up until later in the game. (Even better if it’s not always obvious what decision leads to what outcome.) That way, you get your realism and consequences without forcing an annoying game-mechanical limitation on people who don’t want it. The only good reason to limit saves is because some people find it more fun to play that way - which is fine, but for crying out loud, make it optional! In a single-player game there is absolutely no reason for anyone to force their own playstyle on everyone else.

3 Likes
#120

Lets not get into the extremes. This is still just a game.

Like to play this way? Well there should not be any “way” how are you used to play a game. Because if there is, it means that there is a lot of same games that can be played the same way.
And as far as i know, this game is supposed to be something new.

At the end of the day it is a developers decision how he limits his game. And if he is trying for everyone to feel more immersed, I am all for it.

And that why I disagree with you here. It is bussines of a developer, an artist, a creator how his game is played. You cannot just ditch out the intentions of the autor and say “I am gonna do it this way”.
That is why KCD wil support mods, to do things your way.

But I dont necessarily disagree with the optional difficulty setting. I am just completely OK with Warhorse saying “We want to make players to play it like we intend to”

1 Like
#121

Imo skyrim did it well. Saves do enable some degree of exploitation but it depends on how you choose to role play. Some people want the hard-core style and others want it less punishing. If you want hard-core then limit yourselves to autosaves only or even dead is dead. If you want normal then save all u want .Personally in skyrim I did both for separate characters and both were enjoyable for their own reasons .This is why I feel leaving save use free (without debuffs) is best.

#122

[quote=“ProkyBrambora, post:120, topic:23965”]
Lets not get into the extremes. This is still just a game.[/quote]
…which is exactly my point. Things like the save system are not part of the story or setting; they are game-mechanical / interface elements. They’re designed for the player’s convenience, not to be ‘realistic’.

Why the hell not? This game is an open-world RPG. It was advertised as an open-world RPG and I backed it on that basis, therefore I want - and expect - to be able to play it in roughly the same style as other, similar games. I don’t expect it to play exactly the same way as (say) a Bethesda game, but I do expect the basic mechanics to resemble other open-world RPGs and not, say, a roguelike or survival-horror game. As for being more immersed, I know from experience that this is most definitely not the effect that limiting saves would have on me - quite the opposite, in fact.

[quote=“ProkyBrambora, post:120, topic:23965”]
And that why I disagree with you here. It is bussines of a developer, an artist, a creator how his game is played. You cannot just ditch out the intentions of the autor and say “I am gonna do it this way”.[/quote]
Firstly, if the devs had a fixed idea of how they want this particular gameplay element to work, they wouldn’t be asking for our opinions here. Secondly, regardless of the devs’ intentions, if a particular gameplay mechanic will destroy my enjoyment of a game I helped to fund then I have a perfect right to object to it. No one is forcing them to agree, of course.

LOL. “Everyone should be forced to play my way, even if I’m in a tiny minority, and anyone who doesn’t like it can just use mods.” Have you checked the poll results recently? That attitude would be unreasonable enough even if the limited-saves option were winning, which it clearly isn’t.

#123

You have. And you do.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by “my way”? There is no “my way” only “the way” devs choose.
The polls may decide nothing. They are only another source to help developers to understand their players.

Of course the “save anytime anywhere” is winning. Because people dont know anything else. They are used to the way they always played and are afraid of something new.

But anyway I dont know why are you arguing with me. I am just explaining what is attractive on alternative saving options than the common “press the button to win”.

#124

‘My way’ in this case is the autosaves-only option, which you have made it clear you would prefer. It’s not ‘the devs’ way’ because, as is evident from the OP, the devs haven’t decided what to choose yet (or hadn’t at the time the poll was posted).

Let me quote from the first post (my bolding): “So we are having a discussion about how to implement saves. Some of us have problem with saving anywhere, because […] So here is the question - what type of saving would you prefer?” Clearly, they hadn’t made a final choice at this point - the poll may not be binding, but they’re asking the question in order to help them come to a decision, not just to ‘understand their players’.

Please, stop second-guessing other people’s motivations. I’m not ‘afraid’ of another type of saving system; I’ve tried plenty of games with limited saves / autosave-only (console JRPGs, for example) and I just don’t like playing that way. I find it annoying and frustrating, not ‘immersive’. It’s incredibly aggravating to have someone tell you that “you’d totally like this if you’d just try it!” when I have tried it and I KNOW I wouldn’t like it.

I’m arguing with you because you think it’s OK to force players to adopt a particular gameplay style, whereas I think they should be given options - simple as that. And while we’re about it, ‘press the button to win’ has nothing to do with unrestricted saving. Save system and game difficulty are completely separate things, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread - which is why I don’t think they should be tied to each other. You can make challenging gameplay without resorting to artificial limitations like refusing to let people save when they want.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz