Save Game Systems
This article originally appeared in Game Developer Magazine, September 2007 issue.
I once heard Peter Molyneux say that during the development of Populous he didn’t want the player to be able to pause the game. His reasoning was that Populous is a world that goes on with or without the player. Luckily, his friends talked him out of it, pointing out that sometimes the doorbell rings, the phone rings, or the baby cries.
Games are not for game designers and their ivory-tower ideals—games are for players. Players have lives outside of our games and we should respect those lives and design our games accordingly, rather than expect our players to design their lives around us. Players should be able to save anytime they want, or more precisely, they should be able to stop playing your game anytime without losing their meaningful progress.
This is an old argument where one side talks about the convenience of saving anytime and the other talks about the need to make games challenging, but 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.
As an example, Mario 64 doesn’t literally allow the player to save anywhere they want, but it still meets this requirement in spirit. The point of the game is to collect all 120 stars, and every time you collect a star, you “save and continue.” You cannot save your exact position in a level, but such a feature isn’t needed anyway. The geography of the game is designed such that a player can reach the entrance to any level in just a few seconds by navigating Mario’s castle and getting back to any specific goal in a level doesn’t take long either. This preserves the game’s difficulty (players can’t save and load to get the stars more easily) and it also means the player can turn the game off at any time, knowing that the only important progress (collecting stars) has been saved.
 |
| Sometimes Miyamoto forgets where all those stars are. |
Save Point, Checkpoint
God of War 1 and 2 and Resident Evil 4 all use the same save system, which is also common in many other games. They all have save points and check points. Save points let players save their progress and load it later. Check points are sprinkled invisibly between save points and if they die, they go back to the last checkpoint rather than all the way back to the last save point. This system isn’t too bad, but it doesn’t do a good job of letting the player save and quit at any time, either. It would make more sense if the player could pause the game at any time and save progress up to the last checkpoint. I’m not suggesting that the player should be able to take a step, save, fire a shot, save—just that he or she should be able to stop playing the game and resume from the last checkpoint. After all, that would happen anyway through dying.
 |
 |
| Did you find this part in God of War 2? |
In America, we can show shooting people in the face, but bare breasts are taboo. |
Why separate save points from check points in the first place? I think the answer is for technical reasons rather than design reasons. God of War was designed for the PlayStation 2 and Resident Evil 4 originally appeared on the GameCube (and later on PlayStation 2 and Wii). These consoles take a few seconds to write a save to the memory card, so doing this every time the designers wanted a checkpoint would probably have been too annoying to the player. This lead to spread out save points and the addition of check points for convenience’s sake. In the future, we won’t have these technical restrictions.
Gears of War was designed for the Xbox 360, a system capable of writing a save file quickly. Gears of War’s save system is a definite improvement over God of War’s and Resident Evil’s: The player can play through the entire game without having worry about finding save points, but can also quit playing at any time and automatically start at the most recent checkpoint. Gears of War does this by having many checkpoints, all of which automatically save progress without any action required from the player. This example well-illustrates the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. The save system is both very convenient and does not interfere with the difficulty of the game. In fact, Gears of War could be tuned to be arbitrarily difficult without sacrificing any convenience in its save system.
 |
 |
| Gears of War inspired many great cakes... |
...and Etch-A-Sketch scenes. |
Multiplayer
Save systems get a little trickier in cooperative multiplayer games. Players expect to be able to join a friend’s game and leave at any time, and to save and continue their progress later without the game’s save system getting in the way. Gears of War does a great job here too, allowing a friend to join an in-progress game at any time (taking over the AI for the character named Dom). The player can get through a couple of chapters alone, then have a friend join who can leave at any time and pick it up again later. Even if the friend is new to the game, they’re still allowed to join someone who’s playing the last level, because Gears of War is trying to be as convenient to the player as possible.
One hitch is that when the friend leaves, the player must briefly quit the game then restart it from the same checkpoint. On this matter, Lego Star Wars has Gears of War beat because it allows a friend to seamlessly join or leave a game without ever quitting out to a menu screen.
Playing Gears of War with a friend is easier than playing alone (there are no AI adjustments between coop and single player), but it could have been incredibly difficult had the designers wanted it to be. The save system’s flexibility doesn’t prohibit difficulty. That said, if you were really serious as a designer about creating a meaningful leaderboard for single player and co-op play (Gears of War doesn’t do this), then you’d need a single player mode where no one can ever join in, and a co-op mode where the two players are set from the start and can never switch out. This would be highly annoying, so it should only be used as a hardcore leaderboard mode inside a game that also offers a more forgiving system.
Massive Saves
In massively multiplayer online games things get even trickier still. On the plus side, players can log out at almost any moment they want in these games, and their character’s progress (such as items or experience points) will be saved. In World of Warcraft, players can’t log out while “in combat,” and must wait 20 seconds when they do want to log out, but it’s pretty player-friendly overall. There’s even a hearthstone that lets players teleport back a city (once per hour) so they can end their play session at almost any time with character progress saved. What’s much harder to save is progress on a quest or in a dungeon. If a group of four friends is halfway through a three-hour dungeon, one could log out, but it’s socially unacceptable, and that player won’t be able to continue their progress in that dungeon later. This is a worse problem during raids, where 25 people must coordinate their real-life schedules, and the ability to log off at any time is basically gone.
 |
| This is a very powerful warlock from another world. |
Blizzard has taken some steps to simulate the kind of save points seen in offline games, though. The Scarlet Monastery dungeon starts in an ante-room with four separate portals leading to four different wings. This allows players to play just one fourth of the total experience, stop, and come back later. Also, the Mauradon dungeon gives players an item half way through that allows them to teleport back to the half way point, so they can continue their journey later.
Blizzard added even more winged dungeons and pseudo-save points half way through dungeons in the recent Burning Crusade expansion. Players welcomed these changes as they make the game much more convenient, though they still fall somewhat short. A single player game with save points more than an hour apart would be considered lacking, but at least Blizzard is moving in the right direction here. There is opportunity in the MMO genre to be even more friendly to players’ real life schedules.
Outliers
Let’s return to single player games and look at two unusual examples: Dead Rising (Xbox 360) and Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (Nintendo DS). Dead Rising has save points, but no check points. The open-ended nature of the game makes it very easy to forget to save at all, especially considering that the save points are off the beaten path inside the various bathrooms of the shopping mall where the game takes place.
 |
 |
| A game's bathroom imitating real life. |
A real life bathroom imitating a game. |
When players die in Dead Rising, they are given a confusing choice: they can restart from their last save point, losing all character progress since they last saved, or keep their character’s progress, but lose all save points. Yes, you read that right. If a player wants to keep their character’s progress since the last save (such as experience points gained and moves learned) then they must restart the entire game from the opening cut-scene. Even stranger, Dead Rising only allows a single save slot per Xbox 360 profile, per storage device.
That means the game is trying its hardest to restrict people into playing the game only the way the designer wants, while still remaining easily defeatable if one makes a new profile or uses another memory card. By “defeatable,” I mean this grants users the ability to create two save files, a feature common to almost all games.
The reasoning behind these decisions in Dead Rising was probably to create a very specific experience for the player. They are supposed to care about finding those save points, and care that they are in constant danger from zombies and that if they die, the last save point was a really long time ago so it’s going to be a big deal. The world is against the player—as it almost always is in the horror genre—and so the game’s difficulty is intentionally very hard. If the player keeps playing through the game and dying and starting over, they’ll start each time with a stronger character and with more knowledge of how to navigate the game correctly and save the various victims from the zombies. Incidentally, this same save system was used in the game Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, which was also by Capcom and is rumored to share some team members with Dead Rising.
I understand why a designer might create a save system like this that reinforces the concepts of the horror genre, but games are not meant to satisfy game designer ideals, they are for players. I was personally annoyed by this system to the point of quitting, because I could not play it the way I wanted. Dead Rising is an amazing technological showcase and combines the design concepts of a sandbox game (go wherever you want, do whatever you want) with the horror theme of a mall overrun by zombies. And yet, I’m not allowed even two save slots, I’m bullied into playing the same parts over and over because I feel obligated to restart all the time, and the save points require me to actively seek them out, which means it’s very easy to play for an hour or so and forget to save, then die. That type of save system may work for hardcore players (who border on sadomasochism anyway), but the fictional Little Jimmy from Idaho (the person I often design for) is just going to quit playing out of frustration. I know I did.
On the other hand, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow has an unusual save feature that is intended specifically for the player’s convenience, rather than for the designer’s vision. This game has standard fixed-location save points (with no check points) and it also has a second method of saving called a save marker.
 |
 |
| Not all Nintendo DS games have dramatic anime hand poses on the box, but these two do. |
|
Players can pause the game at any time and create a save marker, and then the game quits to the title screen. When they want to play again, they can either load a game that was saved at a save point or they can resume from their last save marker. The tricky part is that if they resume play through either method, then the save marker is destroyed. That means if the player is in the middle of a boss fight, they can save, stop playing, play something else, then later resume from the exact moment they saved. But players cannot reduce the game’s difficulty with this feature because it does not give them a second chance of any kind. This is another example where the game can remain very challenging, and yet still allow the player to save and quit at any time. This same save system was also used by Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) except you didn’t even need to pause and create a save marker. It was automatically created for you any time you turned the Game Boy off during gameplay.
New Mario, Old Trick
One of the most surprisingly bad save systems of recent times comes from an otherwise wonderful game: New Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo DS). It would have been very natural in this game to allow the player to save at any time on the map screen between levels. Instead, the player must beat either the castle at the end of a world or the tower halfway through the world in order to save. For example, in World 2 this means beating a minimum of five levels before reaching a save point. Players can also spend their hard-earned star coins to buy a powerup from various mushroom houses which also lets them save, but they very well might not want to spend their coins.
The need to keep the player at arm’s length from the ability to save is conspicuous here given the traditions of the genre (Mario 64 did much better) and doubly-so considering this is a handheld game. Surely the concern wasn’t about keeping the game challenging, because NSMB lavishes the player with extra lives the whole way through. My girlfriend once asked if she could play Nintendogs on our DS, and I had to explain to her that no, she couldn’t, because I just spent almost an hour collecting nine star coins and didn’t reach a save point yet so I had to leave the DS in sleep mode until I could save. I’m not sure which game designer sensibility this restriction on saving serves, or why it would ever be more important than allowing my girlfriend to play with her virtual dog.
 |
| Everyone loves being the huge Mario. This is actually a wonderfully designed game aside from the save system. |
NSMB really stands alone here. The most incredible part is that when you beat the game, you unlock the ability to save anytime you want on the map screen! This proves that no technical limitation made the save system the way it was. The convenience of saving anytime was deliberately withheld from the player, and given as a reward at the end. As designers, we can’t do this, and must instead put the real lives of our players ahead of our game designery ideals.
Saving For The Player
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. As I have shown, this does not even require a tradeoff with game difficulty; even difficult games can have convenient save systems.
We should always try to design a save system that simply serves its purpose and fades into the background, otherwise we might end up like New Super Mario Bros.—a game with sales of over 10 million units worldwide, and with ten million girlfriends unable to play Nintendogs.
--Sirlin
November 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Spot on! You sometimes see designers grouching about “save-point creep” but I think that’s bunk. Save-point creep, in my view, indicates a problem with the core game design, not the save system. Further (speaking as a libertarian) why should that even be a problem for the designer in the first place? It’s my game experience to “ruin” if I so choose.
I’ve never heard a movie director complain about people skipping to the end of their DVDs, or authors griping about readers circumventing their narrative by reading the last page ahead of time. If game designers want to be treated with the same respect as the authors of other mediums, we should pay similar respect to our audience.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:04 am
One of your best articles of recent times. But, IMO, you’re coming down a bit hard on Dead Rising and New Mario Bros. I thought to myself as soon as I saw that you were writing about saving, “oh damn, he’s got to include something about Dead Rising,” so in that way, I was very happy to see it there. But still, the opportunities to do something completely different are constant in Dead Rising. Yeah, you have to fight your way to the security room each time, and you’re going to probably have to go through that first dreadful night where you have to cross the park with the nighttime zombies and the convicts on a Hummer…but past that, there’s so much to do that worrying about doing the same thing ten or twelve times (personally, I maxed out my character’s level, and learned all the moves before I even started really playing the actual game) and the fun-yet-simplistic gameplay makes those ten or twelve more than tolerable.
As for New Mario Bros…yeah, it’s quite annoying. Thing is, though, the DS’s suspension of data whenever you close it makes it so that you don’t actually have to spend the length of time between castles/towers in order to save all at once. I feel the pain, though. I got Sonic Rush and New Mario Bros together, so it is indeed quite annoying. But when it comes to the DS, you’re not often going to be on-the-fly switching games (unless you’re a Pokemon kinda guy, like me…). But like with Dead Rising…the game is good enough that this isn’t a colossal issue.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:22 am
My most sincere game wish is to be able to save a multiplayer RTS game. It doesn’t strike me as being that difficult, since data is already synced between clients all the time, but it would sure be nice in games where matches can easily last longer than an hour.
I’ve never played Dead Rising, but that sounds irritating as all get out.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
[…] Tactical Gamer wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThis is a very powerful warlock from another world. Blizzard has taken some steps to simulate the kind of save points seen in offline games… […]
November 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
spudlyff8fan: it was a big deal. I couldn’t play the New Super Mario Bros because I can’t leave my DS “locked down” for days on end, and I don’t play long enough to complete five levels in one or two sittings.
Dead Rising was interesting because the save system actually made me play it more like a tactical game and less like survival horror. Interesting, but I never finished it.
My concern is more about quick save, personally.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Wow. “Save markers” sound like such a good solution to so many problems.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:10 am
How about a link to this post:
[…] Tactical Gamer wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThis is a very powerful warlock from another world. Blizzard has taken some steps to simulate the kind of save points seen in offline games… […]
November 14th, 2007 at 2:14 am
How about making checkpoints the save points, but deactivating the one you just used so you have to go on playing the next time? (In a sandbox-like game, this might work)
Would get rid of “save-point-creeps”… but still, it’s not really convenient.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Dead on. It’s good to hear that I’m not the only person annoyed at the way New Super Mario Bros. handles saves, or that games this day and age should have more than one save file, considering that the very first Zelda game released some twenty-odd years ago offered THREE.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Sorry for the double-post, but I just remembered an RPG that had a really good save system: Tales of Eternia (Tales of Destiny II) for the PS1 and the PSP. Instead of the usual JRPG “save points,” the game had “load points.” You could save your game anywhere outside of combat, and when you returned, you’d be at the last load point, but retain anything earned (experience, loot, etc.) up until the point you saved.
It was a great way to save and load in Japanese-style RPGs. It’s somewhat surprising that very few other RPGs (including other Tales games, surprisingly) drew from it.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:48 am
As far as I can tell, the save marker system in Dawn of Sorrow is pretty much the same thing as the only save system available in NetHack and other roguelikes. You can save anywhere, but once you load the save, it’s gone. This should be the baseline of save systems everywhere. The player can take as many breaks as they want, but can’t finesse everything by saving every few seconds and retrying the sequences until everything goes perfectly. Then it’s a question of game design whether the player gets unlimited retries from every save, fixed check points or no mercy at all as in NetHack.
The discussion about save games is probably somewhat messed up because people don’t make this distinction. The default assumption seems to be that saving always implies a checkpoint, which means that unlimited saves yield unlimited checkpoints as well.
Maybe we should start talking about save markers when we mean saves which allow the player to take a break and are lost when they are loaded and about checkpoints when we mean saves which the player can load multiple times after messing up? Or suspend saves and retry saves?
November 14th, 2007 at 3:57 am
You didn’t mention the worst part about Dead Rising. Infinity Mode. Just play the game and you’ll see what I mean.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Yeah, Castlevania’s save markers were a great idea.
Also, you’re right about Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter. I loved it and many of my friends liked the battle system, but most were scared off by the limited saves. D’oh!
NITPICK
The Castlevania saves were exploitable through their save markers. The marker would save your stats and xp but would completely reset the room. You would start off in the beginning of the room, with enemies fully respawned. If you needed to hunt a rare enemy in one room you could enter it, kill them all, then save and load the file.
If they had a more precise saving mechanism (ie saves exact positions of everything) it would have been perfect.
END NITPICK
November 14th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Amen for Super Mario 64. I loved having saves offered after earning stars. It added extra satisfaction to the deal. Not only did my work pay off, but nothing (save a younger sister and the curiosity to determine what “erase” means) could take it away from me. In fact, I’m going to go play it on the VC right now.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
[…] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt This article originally appeared in Game Developer Magazine, September 2007 issue. I once heard Peter Molyneux say that during the development of Populous he didn’t want the player to be able to pause the game. His reasoning was that Populous is a world that goes on with or without the player. Luckily, his friends talked him out of it, pointing out that sometimes the doorbell rings, the phone rings, or the baby cries. Games are not for game designers and their ivory-tower ideals—games are for […]
November 14th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Glad I finally got to read this article you mentioned earlier. I completely agree with the premise, especially since I’m (regrettably) becoming more of a casual gamer myself. Makes me wish more games had the checkpoint-save system in place. I always thought that the Metroid Prime series was perfect except for the one glaring flaw of “oh god please let me beat this boss I haven’t found a savepoint in a while and don’t want to lose all those scans.” There was one point in Prime 3 where I paused the game at the beginning of a boss battle (Gandraya) and went to GameFAQs to get a walkthrough for the boss, not because I felt I absolutely needed it, but because I didn’t want to go through all the crap I’d done to reach it again.
I only hope that future game designers will take this article to heart.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“there’s so much to do that worrying about doing the same thing ten or twelve times”
If there’s so much to do, why should we HAVE to do the same thing ten or twelve times? I’d rather do 9 or 11 of the other so many things to do.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Zelda: Link to the Past has a moderately convenient save system on par with Mario 64. You can Save & Quit at any time during play, though it doesn’t track your exact position. If you were in the overworld, you can restart from one of three locations (though only one location if it’s the Dark World). If you were in a dungeon, you restart at that dungeon’s entrance. Any enemies you defeated are respawned, but the items you’ve found and the puzzles you’ve solved are retained. So barring a few minutes of travel time to get back to where you left off, you lose nothing meaningful if real-life circumstances require you to drop the game immediately.
And a form of Dawn of Sorrows’ save marker system is used by a much earlier game, the RPG/RTS hybrid Ogre Battle: Person of Lordly Caliber (N64). You can formally save (up to 2 files on the cartridge itself, and more if you use a memory card) when you are on the world map inbetween battle scenes. If you are in the middle of a battle scene and have to stop playing for whatever reason, you can save a Suspend file at any time, which takes you back to the title screen. This file saves all progress in the battle up to that point (including party positions and queued orders), and is deleted once it is loaded.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Yes, whoever invented the “save marker” needs a big raise.
The problem with “save anywhere” systems has always been you can save and reload to make the game artificially easy.
“Save markers” are great at solving a particular problem - you need to save because you need to do something else.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Agreed with all your points Sirlin-saving should never be withheld from the player because not being able to save when you’re in the middle of something is one of the worst parts of playing games. This is especially true when you don’t really want to play that part of the game all over again because you aren’t ‘permitted’ to save.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
One problem I see is games that allow save everywhere, and save at save points, in different kinds of saves, that don’t have time markers on them. Super Robot Wars does this- if you save between missions, and save in-mission, put it down for a few days,and come back, you have to remember which save it is you’re saved at since they’re different menu items.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
This article makes me think of pre-4 Resident Evil games. Man I hated those games, it’s like you had to make a commitment to play them, with the limited saves and having to start the game over again because you don’t have enough bullets to kill the boss.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Fantastic article, Sirlin. Something I’ve been yelling on forever and with every year out of childhood and into “I have real stuff to do that comes way before your save system”.
Beyond that, the whole setup of ‘lost progress’ systems is absolutely asinine. “Alright, I got items x,y,z on my way to boss G. I die on boss G…I now have to go pick up x,y,z again. What? x,y,z took 50 minutes and I forgot to save at a permanent slot? You know what, I got another game right next to this one that may not do that.”
They had game systems way back in the 1980s that managed the whole “You lose, but you don’t really lose your progress, you just have to try the difficult section again” right. Stuff like Dead rising is a step way backwards.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 am
My strategy for playing NSMB was simply to play straight through the game collecting the easy star coins if I could and skip the side-levels and side-worlds. Before beating the game, I only used star coins to unlock things if I needed a save point before beating a tower or castle. Since I saved my coins, I always had enough when I needed to save early. Then, after I beat the game, I went back for all the star coins I missed and played all the levels I didn’t the first time. I ended up “3-starring” (100% completion) the game without too much frustration since I made my first goal unlocking unlimited saves.
Not that I’m defending the stingy, pre-completion save system, but the clever gamer could figure out a way to make the save system less painful rather than trying to fight it and frustrate himself.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:40 am
I should’ve asked this the first time, but why didn’t you just spend the 5 star coins to save when your girlfriend wanted to play the DS? There’s not much else worth doing with the star coins, and you have to spend them all to get 100% completion anyway.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
[…] Sirlin.net has an article that I’ve agreed with for some time: […]
November 21st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
You’re all ignoring the greatest form of save features:
THE PASSWORD SYSTEM! Games had it right before they had memory cards or built-in batteries.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 am
Passwords. Ew. I’m not sure if any game had worse passwords than River City Ransom:
i q X o k e S f a c i
m K p v c U k Z U z W
R i Q v r q h k T 4 Q
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Great article, I hope many game designers take note. As an avid gamer of 20+ years I’ve often shook my head at the seemingly purposefully inept save features of many games. But I would have to disagree with one small point, I can’t imagine that the time needed to save a game will be reduced to inconsequential on all games. As games continue to increase in complexity their save times will continue to increase, only to be offset by increased system speeds.
And I’ll die a happy man if I never see another password save, I can’t even properly express my anger at accidentally transposing characters on Golgo 13 for the NES.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Sirlin. Great article as always.
Just as an aside, have you considered adding a Slashdot it tag to your articles as well as a Digg it tag. The only reason I ask, is that I just had my blog Slashdotted (http://roguelikedeveloper.blogspot.com) for submitting a similar article to their firehose, and think that you may find this a more effective way of spreading the Sirlin word.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The save systems I’ve liked the most are probably the checkpoint and “save when you log out” systems.
You cannot actually save anywhere. But when you quit the game, it saves your last position. If you happen to die when you start up the game again, you go back to the last checkpoint.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I think my favorite save system is the one that saves the game near exactly as it is when you quit, but if you die, you go back to the last checkpoint.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I like all save systems except the ones that allow for ’save creep’. Why? Because beating a challenging game is a major source of pride and pleasure for gamers, and basking in one’s own glory by sharing one’s gaming feats with others is very important to many gamers. Saying “I beat Halo on Legendary” would lose SO much impact if Halo allowed the player to save at any time (the checkpoints in Halo are mostly closely spaced and you can save at any checkpoint, so there is rarely a need to replay large sections). Game designers are correct to prevent save creep strategies, because they understand that gamers who seek credit and recognition will not want to share their glory with people who creep their way through games.
Furthermore, games that allow save creep are often ridiculously difficult, as if the designers EXPECT the gamer to creep. You’re chucked into a room with a million monsters, and you can’t survive unless you save after every kill, and if you take any damage you have to reload your last save and try to kill the monster without taking damage. Then repeat this process a million times. No thanks, that’s hellishly repetitive and frustrating.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:06 am
MrEmpirical:
Why not challenge yourself not to use the save points then? That argument doesn’t make much sense to me, the designers don’t force you to save, it’s an option.
I never save in a MGS game, and I only save between episodes on a game like God Hand if I don’t intend to continue playing. You COULD save more often and retry everytime you die, but I can not understand those people that will repeatedly re-load a save to then claim they had the perfect playthrough. I also can’t understand why anybody is impressed with tool-assisted game runthroughs.
Also if you are playing a game just to brag….maybe you should be doing something else. You play a game for yourself. Nobody actually believes anybody’s bragging. Everybody always brags how good they are at SF too, but most players just aren’t very good when you actually play them. At least fighting games have a competitive option for proof, as do FPS and RTS games, playing against the computer to prove something is retarded.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:19 am
The least restrictive save system possible also let you exploit a game’s random number generator. Treasure chest has a only a 10% chance of having the item you want? Save the game, open the chest, and if you don’t like the loot, reload and try again. If a game is an RPG with random encounters, you can take this to the extreme: save after every few steps, and reload each time you’re attacked.
<i>Why not challenge yourself not to use the save points then? That argument doesn’t make much sense to me, the designers don’t force you to save, it’s an option.</i>
Well, you could - but that does make it harder to explain to someone else what, exactly, you accomplished.
<i>Also if you are playing a game just to brag….maybe you should be doing something else. You play a game for yourself. Nobody actually believes anybody’s bragging.</i>
Well, bragging to other people isn’t the primary reason to play a challenging game, but it is part of the fun. ;) For example, I’m proud to be able to say that I’ve beaten Battletoads (on an actual NES) and have ascended an Archaeologist in Nethack.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 am
I dunno… it seems like a complete valid choice to give to the player to me. If someone really wants to completely twink out their characters in an RPG or whatever, and maximize every treasure chest drop, then they’re allowed to reload saved games to do so… just takes a lot of time.
Personally, I could never stand to sit around trying to do that stuff, but I still love playing RPGs for the story and whatever else… so I wouldn’t use save tricks, not to make it a challenge, or accomplish something… but just cause it’s the least obnoxious way to progress.
It seems like a moot point though… by providing tools for both styles of play, developers are doing the right thing. Which I think plays into Sirlin’s original point… which is that save systems should be as non restrictive as possible.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
[…] Mistakes of Youth: The Blog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
December 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Serpent,
You gotta learn to read ALL of a post before you reply.
I like to challenge myself by not saving often. The problem is, many games that allow constant saving seem to be DESIGNED under the assumption that the player will save creep, which makes it very difficult to play without saving (if you had actually bothered to read my original post, you would have seen me make this point).
For example, there were parts of Doom 3 that seemed to require almost perfect execution just to survive, thus necessitating save creep. Sure, you can respond by saying that I’m a noob and I just wasn’t good enough to survive without save creeping, but in all honesty I’ve beaten a lot of difficult shooters and I know excessive difficulty when I see it.
If designers would make shooters under the assumption that the player will tear through rambo-style, then it would be awesome, and checkpoint saves would be sufficient anyway.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Yeah, I’m not seeing the problem with the quicksaves and quickloads either. If players see the need to min-max their opportunities by quicksaving and quickloading after each step in a single player game, who’s the one losing? I say “no-one”. If it’s so important to beat a game with the least amount of saves possible, you can still have stuff like achievements for that.
“I like to challenge myself by not saving often. “
So, um, play the game on easy if you’re so bent on limiting your saves?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Gears of War’s save system is complete crap. What if I don’t want to save? Gears of War doesn’t give you that option. What if I’m playing through the game and my friend comes over but he wants me to show him the previous level. What if I load up my auto-save and beat the area he wanted me to show him but now I’m completely out of ammo and have the wrong weapons. It sure would be nice if I could avoid saving but instead I’m stuck either attempting to get lucky enough to beat this section, likely dieing countless times and wasting time, or go back to the previous section and try to recreate my original auto-save. To be fair I suppose the game does warn you and it is easy enough that an issue like this will probably never be a problem.
As for your every game should have “save markers” (quicksaves) theory, it would be a great idea if and only if it were possible to make non-exploitable quicksaves. In general making a quicksave system that can’t be exploited requires two things. One, the game would have to resume exactly as you left it, as if you had paused, walked away and then unpaused. Two, it would have to be impossible to copy the save data or that somehow copying the save data would invalidate the quicksave. Otherwise you will always have players exploiting your system and it will always degrade the challenge of your game. The first part can be overcome with new technology but how do you plan to prevent people from making multiple copies of their data (effectively allowing them to save/load from anywhere)? Right now the only major platform on the market that can overcome second issue is the only one that can’t overcome the first, the DS. Since all file management is completely controlled by the game itself the game designer can limit or remove the ability to copy files.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
If a player is willing to to dive into your file system, and extract backup copies of his save files, and exit every time he dies to restore those backups, why would you care enough to prevent him? It takes a fairly annoying amount of effort outside of the game to do something like that, and the result is closer to a cheat code for an extra life than a “real” exploit. In addition, the original point was still that save systems are *not* a good way to control things like game difficulty.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I agree with Claytus. What do you care if people are making file system copies of your game’s save files? It’s a single-player game. Let them play it how they want. It isn’t ruining the experience of others. It’s not like you’re rewarding them with money or some prominent leader board position for their efforts.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
MrEmpirical:
I did read it, I just don’t think there’s much merit to it. If a game requires perfect execution, then it requires perfect execution to win it. You’re asking for a challenge but when you are given one you refuse to take it up, and instead seem to claim the game is too hard so you need to use the save feature. What would you do if a game doesn’t have it, just refuse to play it because it is too hard?
The early NES Megaman games required perfect execution, and there was no save feature. I’ve never played Doom 3, but the original Doom had quite a few stages that required perfect execution to survive. I think I mentioned God Hand, it’s a difficult game that lets you save between episodes and continue. People that want a challenge try to beat the game without continuing, and reset to get that. I personally just play through it, but if I lose a life I lose a life, I’m not going to reset it and pretend I never lost.
I haven’t played Ninja Gaiden, but Itagaki, the creator, said he purposely made it really hard. Some people enjoyed the challenge and others said it wasn’t fun.
I feel a game should give you the save option but then also have variable difficulty levels, so as you get better you can tackle the higher difficulty and can do so without relying on saving a lot. But when you’re starting? Why not have more options? I worked me way up through Streets of Rage 2 so i can tackle Mania mode, it’s not something I’d have done years ago.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Serpent,
Yes, I’ve asked for a challenge, but games that require perfect execution are not challenging at all when save-creep is possible. Again, take Doom 3 as an example. Certain parts required perfect execution, which you might think makes for a difficult challenge, but in fact there’s nothing challenging at all about a scenario where the player is expected to reload a quicksave over and over until they finally (perhaps through chance) get it right. That’s no challenge at all.
I don’t think you understand what I meant by perfect execution. I mean PERFECT. I don’t consider the original Doom to have any stages that required perfect execution. I’ve played the original Doom games on Ultra Violence and while the game is not at all forgiving, there are health packs, armor, and ammo replenishments. By perfect execution, I mean “You can’t do ANYTHING even slightly wrong or you will immediately die”. I’m not kidding when I say that I have played shooters that have certain sections like this, which basically mandate save-creep (in other words they become repetitive and tedious, and ultimately unchallenging because the player is bound to succeed after so many attempts). No matter how hard Doom was on Ultra Violence, you had to make more than one little mistake in order to die. You could take a hit or two, grab a health pack, strafe around some fireballs, and chaingun your way out of trouble (for example).
December 14th, 2007 at 5:42 am
In terms of this
“The reasoning behind these decisions in Dead Rising was probably to create a very specific experience for the player. They are supposed to care about finding those save points, and care that they are in constant danger from zombies and that if they die, the last save point was a really long time ago so it’s going to be a big deal. The world is against the player—as it almost always is in the horror genre—and so the game’s difficulty is intentionally very hard.”
I don’t think it’s supposed to be hard, it’s supposed to force an emotion into the player. Horror movies try to force emotion from the viewer (monster jumps out & impales someone, etc). The thing with horror movies, is that I’m just sitting there. But with a game, I’ve actually gone to some effort. I’m actually trying to make some progress towards a goal, I’m not just sitting and watching passively.
So when you undermine my efforts in order to force an emotion into me, it’s trying to achieve one thing (force the emotion), by screwing up another thing (players working toward a goal). It doesn’t pay off.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Serpent
“At least fighting games have a competitive option for proof, as do FPS and RTS games, playing against the computer to prove something is retarded. “
With MrEmpiricals example of halo on legendary, it’s not against the computer, it’s against anyone else who’d take up the challenge.
If you were at his house and couldn’t beat halo on legendary, but he could do it, he’s beaten you. He’d be simply better at it than you. When you go up against the computer, you are going up against other people - all the people who think ‘Nah, I’ll beat that easy’ but they can’t and you can.
The problem with save creep is that it completely undermines the system of checking someones credentials. If halo on legendary allowed save creep, a really crap player could beat it. There is no boast to be had about beating it. But currently there is - cause not everyone could beat halo on legendary.
MrEmperical notes that it almost seems like it’s expected you use save creep. My personal theory is that it is intentional - its supposed to allow any customer to say they ‘won’ the game. No matter how lame that customers skills are. While the ‘do it all perfectly’ gives it some appearance of difficulty (which save creep then completely undermines). In other words, the companies have started making little ego boosts, for deeds which deserve no recognition at all. Which is like Sirlin’s article on WOW, and how it makes time spent seem more amazing than actual skill.
I think game design companies realise theirs alot of money to be made from stroking egos. Who knew?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I’m not sure I can agree with that… there’s a reason challenges like score modes, and speed runs exist for games. Because, the default difficulties are purposely designed for people to be able to beat them with some practice. I don’t really see how “save creep” is really better than something like memorizing enemy spawn locations, a technique that works wonders in gears of war for example… it takes a little longer to get an entire section committed to memory when you’re not reloading enemy by enemy… but it’s just time commitment.
Skill at the game is really proven when you react to unknown situations, which is exactly why multiplayer is so highly regarded… anyone can win pretty much any single player game out there with, at worst, the need for an online guide and some massive amount of hours spent perfecting their execution. Even things like DMC and Ninja Gaiden, which are widely regarded as hideously hard can be won with hit and run tactics on nearly every enemy… I’ll admit right now I’ve never beaten either game on the hardest difficulties, but it was because I didn’t care about my progress unless I was able to win stylishly and get a good ranking at the end of the level or w/e… the AI certainly wasn’t stopping me from doing some weak hit, and running away, rinse and repeat until victory… I just thought that was too boring to finish.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I have the exact same love-hate relationship with NSMB. Maybe I’ll force myself to finish it so that I can unlock the save-anywhere mode, since the checkpoint system completely sabotages any enjoyment factor it might otherwise bring.
I’m a fan of save-anywhere; I’m sure I must have ranted to you about it at some point. Mostly I’m amused by designers who think that they have to implement restrictive savegame systems to “preserve” the tension/challenge of a game.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:43 am
Alan Au, what are you doing with your star coins? Why not just save them for when you need to save and quit but you aren’t near a castle?
December 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Claytus: “If a player is willing to to dive into your file system, and extract backup copies of his save files, and exit every time he dies to restore those backups, why would you care enough to prevent him?”
Because otherwise the efforts of anyone who beats it legitimately are cheapened and thus my game is cheapened. Why should I go out of my way to cheapen my own game? However having a mode where quicksave is allowed and one where it isn’t would be acceptable. Another option would be to allow players a given number of quick saves to use between real saves, since even if you did copy your data you would still be down one quicksave.
It doesn’t matter what the original point was; I argued against the use of quicksaves, but I suppose I’ll address your point anyway. The original point is actually that save systems shouldn’t interfere with someone’s ability to play the game. Save systems shouldn’t go out of their way to make the game hard but if you allow people to save at anytime, completely freely then your game will be a test in oversaving. Games should allow you to stop playing without significant loss of progress.
Forty: “Let them play it how they want. It isn’t ruining the experience of others.”
That kind of thinking is fine… for sandboxes, and nothing else. It’s also the reason sandboxes are boring. Now don’t get me wrong, it is ok for games to have sandbox elements or modes but a game that is only a sandbox is actually not a game, it’s masturbation.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I would say that you’ve misunderstood the point of single player games. Most players are looking for relaxation of a sort. The extreme case is RPGs, which are literally just telling a story, and usually have absolutely no difficulty once a player just spends an hour or two levelling up for free early in the game. But even games like Ninja Gaiden, which can be horrendously difficult… there’s still a story of sorts there, and even admitting the story is lame, many players continue just to see all the bosses, and meet all the challenges the game has.
That is, you’re point that exploits “cheapen” the experience for other players seems completely irrelevant. It’s SINGLE PLAYER, there are no other players who’s experience you are cheapening because the conflict is entirely between you and the game.
A game *has* to be built with the purpose of allowing people to experience it (at least, assuming it’s in any way story driven, which applies to everything discussed here). The opposite would be selling someone a book, but telling them they can’t read the last chapter until they can bench 180 pounds or something. If someone wants a challenge, they play multiplayer, or they build their own challenges as we discussed, such as avoiding saving. If you can’t agree with that, then I don’t think you belong in this industry.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am
I doubt there is a single Valve developer who felt his efforts were cheapened or invalidated by knowing that some people beat Half-Life by quick-saving every 30 seconds.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 am
What am I doing with my Star Coins? I’m using them to experience the unlockable content. Why should I be forced to choose between content and savegame functionality? If Star Coins were a renewable resource, it wouldn’t be a problem, but otherwise I’m forced to “pay” for something that should be built-in.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
Back on the topic of NSMB, the problem is that until you complete the game, there is a fixed number of times you can save, period. They’re only unlocked over time, basically save-points and save-gems. Maybe this works for people with lots of time to play, as they can regularly save their progress. However, it doesn’t work for me and my 15-minute windows of play time. Fine maybe the game isn’t designed with me in mind, except that by making a simple design choice, it *could* work just fine with my schedule. Give me a single “suspend game” slot to prevent save-crawling if that’s the concern, but otherwise the save system is just so hostile that it makes me wary of even touching the cartridge.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 am
The system is as it is. Your problem is that you’re trying to fight against it and screwing yourself over in the process. If you’d play the game and save your star coins with the unfortunate limitation in mind, maybe you wouldn’t be so disgusted by what is otherwise a fun game.
“I’m using them to experience the unlockable content. Why should I be forced to choose between content and savegame functionality?”
You’re not forced to choose. You can always go back and unlock that content later after you’ve finished the game and unlocked “save anywhere.” It’s not like the content is inaccessible if you wait until later to do it. This isn’t Super Mario Bros., where if you run past a secret area and beat the level, you’ll never be able to get back there without restarting the game. Also, the majority of the “content” that is opened up by spending star coins consists of power-up and 1-up houses — not exactly true content.
In short, if you need all the star coins you can get in order to be able to save at will, it’s foolish to spend them when you don’t need to save.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Whoops, my first post was a mistake; I didn’t intend to use it, which is why I rewrote it, except that I made a mistake and submitted it and now I can’t delete it. You are correct, there’s no need to choose because the game lets you save anywhere after you’re done, which allows you to go back and collect star coins later.
The catch is that I haven’t yet finished the game because I suck at it. The game is actively penalizing me for being bad at it, not that I can’t go back to easier levels and get more lives, but because it takes time to do that. It takes even more time because in order to save I need to collect star coins, which are hard to get, and did I mention that I suck? That means it takes me extra play-throughs to get the star coins I need to save the game, which means I need extra lives, which requires more time, etc.
I’m not fighting the system so much as I’m complaining about the penalty for failure, which is lost time and having to replay levels.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Claytus:
“A game *has* to be built with the purpose of allowing people to experience it (at least, assuming it’s in any way story driven, which applies to everything discussed here). The opposite would be selling someone a book, but telling them they can’t read the last chapter until they can bench 180 pounds or something. If someone wants a challenge, they play multiplayer, or they build their own challenges as we discussed, such as avoiding saving. If you can’t agree with that, then I don’t think you belong in this industry.”
It HAS to be built with the purpose of allowing people to experience it? Hardly - there are plenty of weight lifting competitions out there wher if you can’t lift the weight, yeah, you miss out on the trophy. Games can be exactly the same way - can’t do it, you miss out on the end of the story - the story being JUST a trophy, rather than being some big storytelling exercise.
If you happen to love storytelling games, that doesn’t mean you need to start saying that’s ALL a video game can be. They could be storytelling, or story or whatever could be a trophy for actual achievement (in which case, yeah, multi saving is crap). I get the feeling you’d rather shoot down any other use of video games, like trophy play, if it would risk storytelling style video games being produced. That’s not fair - certainly you wouldn’t want people shooting down storytelling style games in the same way.
The problem is developers start trying to please both markets to make more bucks - they put in ultra saving, which screws over people who do trophy play. And they make play require perfect execution, which screws over people who want story games.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
You’re missing out on the distinction between game types. There are “trophy” style games, that includes everything in the realm of multiplayer FPS and fighting games, but there are many others as well. Anything played at a tournament level competition needs to support that kind of play, and I certainly wasn’t trying to attack those types of games.
That said, single player story driven experiences are not in that genre. Tell me the last time you went to an offline Devil May Cry tournament, and then we’ll talk. There are *hard* storytelling games, like the aforementioned… but the struggle is between the player and the game, and the “trophy” is your personal sense of accomplishment at having beaten it. Noone else cares whether you happened to see the ending or not, and with good reason (speed runs are cool, and no save runs are cool, and they make people care, but not everyone wants to play that way). The point is for the developer to make the player feel like they earned their completion, not to bar them from completing it entirely. That’s when people tell you the game sucked, throw their controllers against the wall, and never buy anything from you again.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:19 am
“The catch is that I haven’t yet finished the game because I suck at it. The game is actively penalizing me for being bad at it, not that I can’t go back to easier levels and get more lives, but because it takes time to do that. It takes even more time because in order to save I need to collect star coins, which are hard to get, and did I mention that I suck? That means it takes me extra play-throughs to get the star coins I need to save the game, which means I need extra lives, which requires more time, etc.
I’m not fighting the system so much as I’m complaining about the penalty for failure, which is lost time and having to replay levels.”
Okay, this I can empathize with. Keep in mind I’ve never disagreed with the sentiments that SSBM’s pre-completion save system is annoying; I’ve just been trying to offer what little advice I can to make the save system more palatable so that the fun part of the game can be enjoyed. Just don’t let the DMC3 masochists and Ninja Gaiden fans see that post of yours. :X
December 27th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Glad to see I’m not the only one fed up with developers forcing us to play to often unworkable schedules! (which I also find quite ironic, considering the generally insane hours most game developers work…)
Before I get into Dead Rising and some other games, may I just ask - is Castlevania’s system not exploitable in the same manner as any quicksave? I haven’t played the game, so I’m probably missing something, but even though it destroys your marker when you reload, couldn’t you just immediately place a new marker before continuing on? (thus enabling you to reload from the same spot again?)
I think you’ve been very unfair to Dead Rising - obviously you’re frustrated with it, and I get that, but I get the impression you haven’t played much of it, which could well be why. Unfortunately, its save system makes more sense the longer you play it, but I guess its easy to get frustrated and give up before reaching that point. While not being able to save at any location in the game can be inconvenient, I’m not sure there are many alternatives that wouldn’t adversely affect the game.
While I’m willing to admit that its possible that they _may_ have removed quicksave-like functionality to prevent save-creep, I don’t think that’s the case, as ’save anywhere’ systems are incredibly uncommon in console titles as a whole anyway. Its also possible that allowing the player to save anywhere was impractical due to the volume of data that would have to be stored if the player was in an open area (hundreds of zombies, plus numerous items, NPCs, vehicles, and countless environmental objects), while still ensuring saves fit comfortably on a standard memory card.
First things first though - its a sandbox game, so location/progression-based checkpoints are not an option. Secondly, you _can_ save at any time, and while it does sometimes involve battling through some enemies, so does reaching a save/checkpoint in most games. Thirdly, if you’re attempting to progress through the story, (rather than mucking about putting Kobun heads on zombies or running amok with the katana) then you’ll be returning to the security room very frequently anyway, so unless you forget to save while you’re there, you’ll rarely lose any significant progress. (and you can’t blame the game for your forgetting to save!) The only ‘checkpoints’ in the game come when successfully rescuing NPCs and at the completion of story arcs, and there’s _always_ an opportunity to save at those times.
Now the obvious retort here is that it could/should autosave at these times. However, the time-sensitive nature of the game means that saving at the wrong time can leave the game ‘unwinnable’, forcing you to restart - thus the power of saving was left in the player’s hands. (even then, its not like every game autosaves anyway, so this is somewhat unfair criticism)
The single-slot aspect to the system is another story, but even then in most games its redundant - you only ever go back to an earlier save if you screw up and save yourself into an unwinnable situation (which _can_ also happen here, mind you) - but even then, Dead Rising is a short game that is designed inside and out to be replayed over and over, with both character and player experience growing with each replay. Dying and restarting with upgraded stats and additional knowledge is part of the gameplay, so you rarely lose anything significant if you die and have to restart.
Your comment that using a different profile allows you to ‘defeat’ the system is also completely missing the point - in doing so, any progress made in one game is lost on the other. The whole point of the game is to play through over and over, learning more about the gameworld’s events whilst also powering-up Frank, so that with each playthrough you progress further and save more people until you’re finally able to ‘finish’ the game.
It isn’t a standard linear game - if you’re expecting to play through it and ‘win’ on the first time through, like most games, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed (which you appear to be) - but that’s just not what the game is about. Its a clockwork puzzle, with numerous events around the mall each happening at specific times, which you learn more about each time you play (much like the brilliant but oft-forgotten Zelda: Majora’s Mask) - dying just gives you greater foreknowledge for the next attempt. The game ‘ends’ after only 6 hours of play, no matter what you do, so if you’ve died after an hour’s play with no save, you’re usually better off going back to the start with all your increased abilities anyway. (which in turn makes it easier to get back to where you were, and allows you to save more people along the way)
Ultimately, its a case of it just being a very different type of game - it looks like a standard, linear, 3rd person action-adventure, but its not. This is one case where you have to play the game their way, because the experience can’t really work otherwise. Just remember to save each time you rescue someone and you’ll surely enjoy it!
Anyway… getting back to saving in general, there are a lot of games with far worse saving problems.
NSMB’s system feels pointlessly hindered - since the coins have implied value, it feels ‘wasteful’ to spend them on ‘merely’ saving, seeing as its a standard function in any other game. Restricting saving on a portable game is pretty lousy regardless, especially when the impact on gameplay would be minimal, had it been enabled.
RPGs are often total bastards, with save points sometimes HOURS apart. Final Fantasy XII has a particularly nasty surprise at one point fairly early in the game: For the most part, save points are quite common and intelligently placed, with a save before each boss encounter for good measure - until you reach a fairly lengthy dungeon with NO save points and THREE bosses! (Luckily I didn’t die, but I think it took about 2~3 hours to get through - not life-friendly at all. Naturally I had just said to myself, “I’ll play to the next save and then go to bed”…)
The worst games for me though, are the ones that ask you to save, and are you sure you want to save, and do you want to overwrite your existing save, etc etc etc. when all its doing is saving your newly unlocked level or new high score or something else that is completely obvious and should have autosaved in the background without you even noticing. Star Wars Battlefront 2 is unbelievably anal in this regard, and almost brings me to controller-hurling rage when I’m playing multiplayer ‘Galactic Conquest’ mode and have to go through a dozen or more dialogue boxes between EACH AND EVERY BATTLE, just so it can update each players’ stats. Its ridiculous!
In regards to game-completion ‘bragging rights’, games should just have a much harder difficulty for the handful of people who want to get into willy-waving contests over that sort of thing, and leave the rest of us to actually enjoy the game. (Halo’s Legendary mode is a great example that works perfectly - the rest of us can enjoy it on normal, without affecting those that want a serious challenge) One thing the game industry REALLY needs to get into its collective thick skull, is that those kinds of players represent a comparatively tiny section of the game-playing public, and pandering to them is only going to alienate more and more players. I know hardcore gamers think that most gamers are hardcore, but they’re really not - most gamers have lives and families and enjoy a wide variety of games too much to become that good at any one, and as the average gamer gets older, the hardcore are going to represent a smaller and smaller slice of the market.
Sure there’s a market for hardcore games like Ninja Gaiden, there’s no doubt, but its a lot smaller than the market for more accessible titles. When it comes to saves, developers just have to realise that games can be challenging without being unfair. The use of checkpoints and saves shouldn’t hurt a well-designed game, but a bad save system WILL hurt a well-designed game. If you want to provide a challenge for the hardcore, add a harder difficulty mode that removes the checkpoints. (And don’t worry so much about save-creepers cheating their way through games - they’re only hurting themselves - everyone else is busy enjoying the freedom to play when they want to. Better to let them spoil their own experience, rather than spoiling it for everyone else just to stop them.)
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
“Before I get into Dead Rising and some other games, may I just ask - is Castlevania’s system not exploitable in the same manner as any quicksave? I haven’t played the game, so I’m probably missing something, but even though it destroys your marker when you reload, couldn’t you just immediately place a new marker before continuing on? (thus enabling you to reload from the same spot again?)”
It is not exploitable. When you place the marker, it ends your current game session. The actual “save marker” option in the game is called “Suspend.” It saves and quits your current game so it can be resumed later. It’s not like a quick-save since you can never have an active “suspended game state” while you’re playing the game.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:00 am
New Super Mario Bros was indeed awful. After I got it it spent more than 6 months in my pocket, because I never felt like playing it, because I knew I would have to go trough 5-6 levels to save, and close lid ability didn’t help at all. I wanted to play other games when the lid was closed!
That was so tedious that when I finally rushed trough the game to finish it I just put the game on shelf so it collects dust. Even though there were so great ideas in that game I got just too many negative feelings due to saving system.
Another awful game would be Diablo 2 - when I got it I had usually 10-15 minutes of time to play per session, and that was not enough for me to finish quests, especially at 3rd act. And every time I saved whole mat got reset, made randomly, and well, I had to start searching for place where I could complete quest yet again. Result? Game never completed, even though it wasn’t to hard for me, got awful impression from me, and collected some dust. Good going Blizzard. You lost (at least)one user. Would it really hurt so much to include saving option that wouldn’t reset the world? Would it be really that game breaking?
For past few years I refuse to play almost any game that doesn’t allow me to save just about anywhere. When I buy game for my DS it’s one of my top priorities. I didn’t like animal crossing just because saving took too much time. That brings another subject I don’t like in some games - time between when I turn on the gaming system till I actually play. If it takes 2 minutes to go trough all logos etc. till I can play and it takes 9 minutes to complete the level and I have 10 minutes to play it’s not even worth turning on. That can continue for weeks till I forget about games existence.
Great article, by the way^^
December 30th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Areinu: I’m going to imagine your “Game takes 11 minutes when I have 10 to do anything” example is an extreme case (because most people would realize that means the game should be played when you have 15 minutes instead of trashing it). Also, you probably wouldn’t have liked Animal Crossing anyway, since it usually takes a good while to finish the day’s chores.
Resident Evil 4 actually annoyed me since the typewriters were spaced so far apart. Considering I didn’t really enjoy backtracking for a few long boring minutes, this led to a lot of points where I was just stuck between two save points and unable/unwilling to reach either. It’s the game I think would have benefitted from “suspend play”/temporary saving the most.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
“I understand why a designer might create a save system like this that reinforces the concepts of the horror genre, but games are not meant to satisfy game designer ideals, they are for players.”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this concept. Yes, a designer should design around the player’s needs, the same way an architect needs to design a building with electricity and running water. But shouldn’t that be self-evident? The player’s needs ARE a game designer ideal.
Furthermore, it sounds as if you’re denouncing the game designers having any artistic aspirations. Which is a little off-putting. It would be more accurate to say that an inconvenient save structure actually WEAKENS the artistry. Horror is likely to be replaced by annoyance if you can’t save and quit at convenient times.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Noone’s saying designers can’t have artistic aspirations… just that saving systems are so vital, in the way that running water is to a building, that that particular element shouldn’t ever be sacrificed for the sake of artistic ideals.
This isn’t to say that save systems need to become more uniform, though. Someone mentioned not liking Diablo2 because they couldn’t play for 10 minutes and save any worthwhile progress. That’s a case where the game just wasn’t made for you… Blizzard realized their core audience all played online, and so they purposely sacrificed a lot of the single player conveniences from the first Diablo. That was a clear choice they made, under the realization that losing some single player only players wasn’t going to really affect their bottom line at the end of the day.
This is completely different from NSMB, where the designers made a game specifically for single player use on a portable system, and then added an inconvenient save system on top of that, when they should have known full well that the portable nature would make people play for short periods of time.
There is a minimum amount of saving convenience that needs to be enforced according to who your audience is.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I think this is a good article over all, and the idea of save markers fits in well with what I’ve considered before, even though I don’t really mind save points in general. However, I do think you are missing at least one reason arbitrary save points are good, besides stuff like being able to choose to not play with them (which could be handled by a simple preference): for many games, particularly RPGs, I often really like to go back and replay certain sections of the game for the story or some particular moment. Arbitrary saves let me get all set up, and then keep that point to go back to days, weeks, or years down the road. Autosaving features that lack this as well mean that any time I want to play something 37% of the way through the game I must restart, which I don’t think is player friendly either.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:59 am
All the games with auto-save that I can think of, include some type of level select option, at least once you beat the game, if it’s not immediately available. Can you give of an example of one that doesn’t?
January 5th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Very interesting read as usual, Sirlin. Just a couple of loosely scattered thoughts…
===
The definition of progress in videogames is wonderfully mutable (a function of genre, narrative, etc.), and it’s for that reason that I believe there to be no single ideal save system. Ten minutes of walking forward may constitute progress in a typical FPS campaign, with more linear level design and a basic correspondence between physical position and campaign advancement. However, ten minutes of walking around in Metroid or Knytt Stories could be worth nothing at all, since meaningful progress occurs in a punctuated manner (i.e. upon acquisition of a power-up ) rather than continuously.
The style of saving should always emerge naturally from the context of the game as it is played; given the various continua along which games can be described — degree of randomization, linearity, etc. — it makes little sense to approach save systems from a “one size fits all” perspective.
===
Designers are, of course, concerned with players’ intentional “abuse” of unintentional loopholes. I agree in part with the commenter who said that players should be free to stack the deck, if they feel that doing so offers enjoyment and validates their experience (for the other side of this opinion, see next section). The single-use save marker system seems like a great starting point for all games — though, as mentioned in the preceding section, many games would do well to adapt it! — since it allows discontinuous play sessions with neither significant loss of progress (good for player) nor significant wiggle room to correct player mistakes in progress (good for designer).
Real-world interruptions are still a much more compelling basis for creating a useful save system. I did want to point out a modicum of danger in deleting the save marker immediately after reload: unexpected corruption, crash, or loss of electrical power. If the game session stops for reasons outside the player’s control, they could be stuck in a situation where no save marker exists at all. A supplementary auto-save feature, not directly accessible to players (somewhat akin to auto-recovery of MS Word documents) could prevent that horrid possibility. Of course, players could cause a crash/outage every few steps in order to beat this system… but if that’s what makes them happy, then more power to them!
===
An design that I’ve really taken to heart lately is tangent to the discussion of save systems. Rather than asking “How can we prevent players from exploiting our save system?”, I believe designers should ask themselves “How can we prevent players from WANTING to exploit our save system?” Something compels players to resort to such tactics, and in many games it is this simple fact: LOSING ISN’T FUN. Although part of the change will have to come from players, I think that designers can do quite a bit to help players enjoy each game experience — win, lose, or draw.
One of the approaches that can help with this issue is to make a terminal loss condition have unique worth and value. For example, a guiding philosophy behind Dwarf Fortress is “Losing is fun!” Even if I’m going a little crazy trying to coordinate a complex social, military, architectural, and economic system, the game succeeds in letting me enjoy the enormity of my loss when the fortress I’ve built succumbs to flooding, collapses due to poor design or political intrigue, starves to death, or becomes overrun by elephants or demons. The game currently has no overt win condition, only a variety of ways to lose and a semblance of a draw condition (continuing to survive; the potential threats to survival are never exhausted!). Humbly and happily accepting defeat, let alone looking forward to its inevitability, is a rare experience in games but one that I would like to see happen more often. [N.B.: Dwarf Fortress uses a “save marker”-like system.]
The other path is to have more NON-terminal loss conditions. If a player can feel comfortable with losing a little bit while retaining the possibility of great gains, rather than losing in a huge way with no hope of salvation, the reason to exploit a save system diminishes greatly. Designers could really liberate gamers if more games cultivated an attitude of “You can lose the battle but still win the war”. Rise of Legends (while not my favorite game by any means) demonstrated this attitude quite well. Unfortunately, the glut of FPS “kill or be killed” combat definitely does not do so: there is typically one win condition, supported by rewards like character and plot advancement, and a vast number of opportunities to reach a terminal loss condition, which has no payoff and is therefore frustrating to encounter repeatedly.
===
God bless you if you read all of that! ;-)
January 5th, 2008 at 6:34 am
“Noone’s saying designers can’t have artistic aspirations… just that saving systems are so vital, in the way that running water is to a building, that that particular element shouldn’t ever be sacrificed for the sake of artistic ideals.”
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear.
I agree that saving systems need to be convenient. Period.
My only beef is, it’s inexact to pit “gamer’s needs” against “artistry.” They aren’t opposed (art isn’t some irrational beast that steps on the toes of all practical needs). In fact, they’re aligned. It’s not possible to “sacrifice saving systems for the sake of artistic ideals,” because saving systems are PART of the artistic ideals. If you don’t meet the gamer’s needs, you come across as condescending or careless, which weakens the artistry of the game as a whole.
So the real problem is not artistic ideals run to an extreme; the real problem is the game designer not caring enough about the gamer. Art is communication, and if you don’t care to make your communication accessible, the audience won’t care to listen, and your art will be limp.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I think you’re running into too many other topics with that argument. I guess the obvious counterexample is all the people that posted here about the problems with “exploitable” save systems due to being “too convenient”. There’s certainly artistic merit to that viewpoint, it’s not patently wrong to design games that way.
That said, the goal of the standard off-the-shelf game is to sell as many units as possible to as many people as possible. The massive game production companies have many reasons to avoid inconvenient save systems that have nothing to do with artistry, and players have many reasons to desire convenient save systems that have nothing to do with artistry. I personally believe those reasons are enough to trump the artistry card in this particular case, especially when you consider the massive budget a modern game needs these days, and the sad fate of a company that makes an incredibly awesome game that fails due to a tiny detail such as a problematic save system.
So, I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with your explanation of why.
And to Cyranix, I think you’re leaving out one important detail… which is that many players don’t mind hard losing conditions as long as they learned something. That is, very clearly defined rules and the ability to easily try again can in itself by enjoyable. Fighting games and strategy games come to mind as an obvious example where each game is pretty much self-contained, and a loss is a loss is a loss, there’s really nothing a designer could do to “soften” the blow of failure. But, players enjoy those games, because every loss leads to you potentially becoming a better player, as long as you can clearly understand why you lost. It’s not limited to multiplayer examples either… Ninja Gaiden appeals to exactly the same type of player.
The issue with save systems has nothing to do with losing necessarily… it’s about convenience, for example, being forced to turn off a game when you’re not near a save point might make you replay a ridiculously long portion of the game for no good reason.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:19 am
In Breath of Fire’s defense, it did have a secondary save system that let you suspend the game at any point not in a battle or cut scene. The temp save is then deleted after you load it. So you can leave the game if something comes up IRL and not lose any of your progress.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:10 am
I think PC games have a saving problem that isn’t fully explored in the comments yet.
Most games on the PC games today use autosaves and quicksaves in SP mode. Usually quicksaves get abused by the player allowing him to make difficult parts easier and by quicksaving too much (because he can) he messes up the flow of the game and hence his expierience is ruined (this goes further as the save-creep problem).
Now there are three things I’d like to point out:
FEAR originally didn’t have the quicksave feature, it was added later. This made the game so much better because the developers put a lot of thought into the autosaves. They couldn’t use quicksave as easy way out of autosave problems (including save-creep parts) so the expierence got a whole lot better.
The only problem with autosaves is that they have to occur in save areas when the player doesn’t have enough health or is too close to an enemy. In the HL2 Ep 2 commentary to the final battle, the developers explain that they managed to get a dynamic autosave function that takes into account the players health and proximity of enemies, so that problem can be overcome as well. This also tells a lot about how the people at Valve think their games should be played.
Today every player can finish a game once he started because most PC games allow to adjust the difficulty in the middle of a game, so that argument for including quicksave doesn’t count anymore.
I am sure that PC games would get better if quicksaves weren’t used because then the autosaves would be better and there wouldn’t be any parts that need perfect execution.
On the topic of restrictive saving systems that enhance the expierence, the PC has a prime example in the form of Operation Flashpoint. It is a infantry simulation that is very unforgiving and only has 2 savepoints per mission, yet it still is the reference. It would have been forgotten already if they included a quicksave system because that would have killed off the whole thrill of the realistic gameplay (realistic enough to be used by the US Army), where you actually think before sticking your head up. (Project IGI had a similar system, but there I wouldn’t call it as crucial to the expierence as with OPF)
January 21st, 2008 at 5:27 am
“This also tells a lot about how the people at Valve think their games should be played.”
Actually, in that commentary node, they remarked how they *noticed* players relying on autosaves instead of quicksaves. If most of their playtesters used quicksaves, they probably wouldn’t have gone the extra mile with the autosave system in that part.
One thing I hated about HL1 (and most RTS campaigns) is that save point creep was taken into account when the game’s difficulty level was designed - HL1 is really unforgiving and pretty much forces players to quicksave whenever they’re not in immediate danger.
The really interesting thing that comes out of that is HL2 - I quicksaved in maybe one or two parts of the game (outside of quicksaving before quitting the game), but I would have been fine without quicksaves at all. In my eyes, Valve proved with HL2 that players are much more willing to play without manually saving, even when the quicksave key is right in front of them!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
I really didn’t think the dead rising save system was all that frustrating. Bathrooms were all over the mall. Just walk into them at on a regular basis and you wont lose any great deal of progress after having died.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 am
I’d just like to add that I personally love being able to save anywhere and any time and start from that location (although this might not be possible with all hardware)
I’m thinking of games like Deus Ex, Oblivion, Half Life and anything I play on an emulator.
The reason I love it so much is because I get alot if freedom to choose what or how I want to play. Other people I’ve discussed this with believe that this makes games too easy. But I like to decide myself if the game should be easy or not.
With -save anywhere-, once I’m done with a task I simply don’t want to do anymore, I can save after that and then I’m sure that’s over with. Killed an enemy for the 57th time and don’t feel like doing it a 58th time if you die a minute later? Walked a minute doing nothing interesting and don’t want to walk that again? You get the idea.
But another thing is that it let’s me (quickly) do anything another time if I feel for it. Games with fixed check/savepoints that automatically save (like Halo) have me sometimes wishing I did not save at all because I wanted to do something different. With -save anywhere- I can do anything over and over until I’m bored of it or have done it “right”
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 am
oh, I forgot to mention that with -save anywhere- I can turn up the difficulty as I please by being creative. If a boss turned out to be too easy, I can (quickly) do it again, but with new self enforced rules (no potions this time!/no exploiting that wall!)
February 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Double Tag about Deus EX–Super sweet game. Being able to save anywhere let me try all sorts of crazy things I wouldn’t normally. A giant chunk of the game would have been missing from the experience had that not been there.
Also, when I last played it, my hard drive was mysteriously shrinking…
I had 4+gigs of Deus EX save files, lol. I think they’re about 4~5megs each?
However…
I have to confess that Dragon Quarter is one of my absolute favorite games. Part of it comes from the survival aspect within the game and between the player and the game–the save system. I can easily see how this would turn off some players and for a legit reason. It becomes difficult to discern though–would the game even hold up if you could save anywhere? Part of me says yes. The D-counter and the overall survival nature of the game is still strong to give the player that experience. However I think sometimes a little bit of actual hardship can make a game fun. That, of course, is like any game. For some reason I think of Taboo. One of my favorite ‘board’/party games. It’s based on NOT doing something. For what it’s worth, I think Dragon Quarter also does some other stuff that other RPG’s and games could learn from. A regular old save system still exists within it, but you can also have the option to get out of sticky situations in a number of ways. D-counter, pay cash/exp, or start over. Concerning Experience/Leveling/Character Building–Though it’s not necessarily the greatest game mechanic, its still popular and fun for me a bit. Many of the penalties/risks/rewards in Dragon Quarter, involve that very thing. I cannot give a good example of how that would work in other types of games at the moment.
In my own current project, I’ve stuck with the mindset to only reward. The core mechanics offer basic penalties for bad decisions, but rather than have penalties to work around, I’ve decided to cater to playstyles and creativity and offer rewards for engaging in them. Perhaps going a while without saving could be a reward, but you can also break off that chain of rewards if you get in a tight spot.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:51 am
One other example where saving was more for the designer and not the gamer is Legend of Zelda Majoras Mask. There are two ways you can save; one is to go back in time to day 1 (the game plays about with time a fair bit) and lose all quantitive items after playing a song which autosaves. The other way is to talk to one of ten owl statues across the game world, but you are forced to quit when you save. To me, this is rather inconvenient, especially when playing through a tough dungeon. They got the save system right on Orcarina of Time, so this change in system was not needed.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
sorry if this has already been said, but I’m loving how saving works in the virtual console, and believe all games should work like that.
You can quit at any time and your exact position will be restored the next time you play again, but if you die, you spawn back at the game’s normal save point.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Don’t forget Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball! That game would automatically save everything, whether you wanted to or not, much like an MMO. But beyond that, you were NOT allowed to transfer your save file off the Xbox onto a memory card.
The rationale? The game had a casino that players could easily exploit if they were ever allowed to “undo” progress by any means.
The problem here is that Xboxes would die so frequently that it was nice knowing that I could at least salvage my save files from other games if I ever had to get a new system. My progress across all games I own for a specific system quickly becomes more valuable to me than the cost of the hardware. If every save file for every game I’ve ever played were locked into a piece of dying hardware, I would honestly be a little frustrated.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:04 am
I absolutely can’t stand games that don’t let you make copies save data. That’s even more pretentious than inconvenient save systems. Hardware fails in the real world. Why should gamers be inconvenienced by not being allowed to protect against that? What kind of game ideal is more important than peace of mind for your save data?
I bought an SD card for my Wii so that if the Wii dies, all my save data can be transferred to a new one. The creators of Smash Bros. Brawl think that’s less important than making sure I unlocked all the characters “fair and square”, and as such have made it on my shitlist. Assholes.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:08 am
PoisonDagger: Some things are a judgment call and can go either way. Preventing you from copying Smash Brothers save data to enforce the unlocking scheme is not one of those judgment calls. They clearly made the wrong move there and they should be ashamed of themselves.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
It just dawned on me that they probably did that with Brawl for the same reason they did that for DoA Volleyball (and not because they want players to unlock everything “properly”). You can observe random online matches in Brawl, and bet on the winners with coins you earn by playing single player. They probably don’t want players amassing ridiculous numbers of coins by reloading old saves (even though the coins are only spent on continues in single player).
We could argue whether or not that justifies removing the ability to back up game data (I would of course argue to live with the exploit or remove the gambling feature entirely, since it gets in the way of something more important), but I’d rather just call them out on not using a separate uncopyable file for coin data so that players can back up the *important* data.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Apparently, there are several games on the Gamecube and Wii that don’t let you copy game data. F-Zero GX is a great example because the game is almost unfairly difficult (and I fully completed it!), yet the Move/Copy options are disabled on the Memory Card management screen when you try to backup all that hard work. This might be related to the fact that you can get unlocks with the arcade version of the game (which was scrapped after only a handful of units saw the light of day), or post your times via passwords to an online leaderboard, but I don’t see how those could be more important than allowing people to insure themselves against hardware failure.
Do you know how important this was to Nintendo? They didn’t just disable Move/Copy. They didn’t just lock that save file to a specific randomly-generated memory card serial number. They encrypted the entire save file so that you can’t modify the stored serial number to match a new memory card and get the data to load from it! People managed to circumvent other games’ data lockdowns (Fire Emblem, for instnace), yet as far as I researched, nobody could crack F-Zero.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all need to take a step back and think about this for a second (yes, all three are guilty of allowing no-copy flags on regular save data). This data isn’t for a business-critical application. It is for an amusement machine. It’s not important if people circumvent the intended system. It’s far more important to allow people to back up their data and transfer it around as they see fit.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
This is tangential, but:
I had a revelation when I bought Accent Core last year for my PS2. The day I got it, a friend came over who wanted to check it out. We played Smash all the time and I had mentioned GG and a few other fighters to him in passing. I popped in the disc, and handed him a controller. “So what do we need to unlock?”, he asked.
“Oh, nothing.”
He was astounded. I hadn’t thought about it myself, but his reaction made me realize something. Unlockable content should NOT be required to fully experience the game. Why would you hide some of the characters from the new player? Why would you hide stages in Smash? Unless you really d