Perfectly valid design decision. Some people might not agree, but save states really do impact how you play and how the game feels. The drawbacks are obvious, but I for one would gladly take them with well designed save points over save states
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Western RPGs are casual as hell.
- Thread starter GayForMaster
- Start date
Perfectly valid design decision. Some people might not agree, but save states really do impact how you play and how the game feels. The drawbacks are obvious, but I for one would gladly take them with well designed save points over save states
I've really been praying and holding out for a Dragons Dogma pc port. But if that never comes to fruition I might dive in when that expansion Dark Arisen comes out on consoles.
Save anywhere kicks ass. When I'm playing fallout, i get pissed at the NPC's in town sometimes, and i, like any non-psychotic person would do, casually unload a few Fatman Nukes in their town and send it straight to hell. Then i reload my last saved state, and carry on AS.IF.NOTHING.HAPPENED.
Riposte
Member
I don't, at all. I never implied that I did.
As for your "optional" defense: Any option which negatively affects a game is there even if it is "optional". If the player determines that it is the best option, but then decides to ignore it, he is still interacting with that option (and in a way which is unnatural to the game itself). This is the case with overpowered maneuvers. Quicksaves are exactly that, except the developer doesn't really care to make it fit within the game's atmosphere. (It is more valuable to instead look at how detrimental negative options are instead of making the vapid point that options are, in fact, optional.)
EDIT: And you completely missed the original point of my post. Why can't we criticize the old rules if we make new ones? Can we not even highlight that we felt it necessary to make new ones? Are you asking me to turn off my brain?
haha awesome, best defence for quicksaves right here
let people play how they want
This right here is the only justification needed for save anywhere.
Palette Swap
Member
You make it sound like ignoring quick saves is excruciating.
I tend to ignore save states to the favor of autosaves most of the time and I must have missed something because it's mostly transparent. The same way I don't really have issues ignoring normal or easy modes when a game offers a hard mode.
Edit: the biggest use of save states for me is being able to turn off the game whenever I want. Generalized suspend saves would probably mean I'd never use them.
Riposte
Member
I see that as a criticism of quicksaves more than anything else. NPCs don't mean shit in the world of Fallout. Killing them is one button press away from not mattering.
Now imagine a game where he was forced to live with the consequences. His actions would gain more weight (and likely require more thought) and by extension the NPCs, who are currently nothing more than disposable meatbags that can be put back together on a whim, would too.
Well, I'll give you this:
The easier something negative is to ignore, the better it is for the game. Difficulty modes (including the ability to turn off quicksaves) present only at the beginning of the game is much easier to "ignore" than a constant option. It is one obnoxious choice you'll make versus that choice being ever present and more so obvious in cases where the game is asking your to step it up. Another important difference between games is whether it is playable to one's satisfaction is much better versus a game which practically forces you to use quicksaves because of no effort on part of the devs. Compare Serious Sam 3 to Dishonored. The latter has garbage design (in a bunch of areas, they didn't even try to make sense of mechanics in that game).
EDIT: Daingurse doesn't look competent enough to keep up this conversation.
EDIT: FYI, you are supposed to address arguments, not ignore them and repeat yourself.
What you need to get straight is the problem you are having is between you and the game I really see no valid justification to criticize an optional function. Not everyone derives enjoyment in the same way you do. A major game mechanic problem for you is a non-issue for me. I'm not really sure what you don't understand here. Your problem is entirely optional and I think your criticisms are overall petty. You have a choice, to press F5 or not press F5. Developers aren't forcing you do anything, they are only providing the option of convenience for players like myself and many others.
Well I know to simply ignore you from now on. If you honestly think my comments are written by someone incompetent then you aren't worth my time or energy.
This seems to boil down to "save anywhere is too powerful". which I would regard as a reasonable point, actually. That's not, however, something that is in any way limited to western titles, and it's simply a design choice that should be taken into account and the difficulty pitched around; it's not inherently *wrong*.
The thing is, you are arguing against options in favour of one way of playing a game. If that is what the dev wants, that's fine. It's less interesting to me, but that's okay. If we remove the options, the games become less free, and less interesting to a lot of people.
fatgamecat
Member
If developers add an "extreme" difficulty, or an "ironman" difficulty setting, they then have to test and balance that difficulty. That can be a lot of work, especially in lengthy, complex, deep games like RPGs.
It's cheaper and easier to let the player do whatever they want without regard to balance or difficulty. Not to mention that extremely difficult single player games or difficulty modes have a very small audience.
That is why you see less and less of it these days. It's more about the experience now.
It's cheaper and easier to let the player do whatever they want without regard to balance or difficulty. Not to mention that extremely difficult single player games or difficulty modes have a very small audience.
That is why you see less and less of it these days. It's more about the experience now.
Riposte
Member
"Freedom" isn't necessarily good. I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say that. Is it necessary need list ways not properly "limiting freedom" can hurt a game? I am working under the assumption we like depth in our games.
Sure, shit is situational. The thing is, it is generally a very bad idea for it to be in a game. If it doesn't unbalance the game in itself, it can lead to developers simply not caring about balancing encounter design (as the player as a magic fix to all problems in their pocket) or shoving various responsibilities onto the player (which is not exactly good for immersion if this is handled with "out of world" option). I can't think of any examples where a game truly benefits from having a quicksave, only they might need them out of necessity (because they are poorly designed).
While I will agree that most western RPGs are really easy in terms of difficulty (Mass Effect and The Elder Scrolls series), they are much more hardcore in terms of actual role playing. Most JRPGs offer no more than a couple of questions or "Yes or No"-answers that you can give to NPCs but you never really affect the story in any way.
Then the are of course the ones that really otherwise put pressure on you like The Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, first Fallout games.
Then the are of course the ones that really otherwise put pressure on you like The Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, first Fallout games.
Yes, but freedom is not mandatory. Just because you can do something does not mean you have to do it. I understand there are some games for which the dev is aiming for a particular narrative, with depth, and in those cases yes, restricting freedom of action serves a purpose. Other times it is just there to make a game more difficult. Not all games need to be deep. I think I would abandon the hobby entirely if there were only deep games.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Sarcasm, anyone?
I recently lost four hours of progress in Blue Dragon due to its terrible, archaic save system. The game is really not that hard, even on the downloadable Hard difficulty, but while I was maneuvering my character around trying to capture multiple enemies (I have no idea why that stupid circle only occasionally captures all the enemies in range, the system seems to be broken), one of the enemies pounced on me in the split second that my back was turned to it. My back row of spellcasters and all but one of my fighters went down before I even got to make a single move. There are no checkpoints, no retries, nothing, just an option to quit or load the last save. What a load of bullshit.
fatgamecat
Member
So someone asked for a "difficult JRPG". If anyone can find a turn based RPG enemy boss that tops Satan in SMT: Digital Devil Saga 2, I'll give you a cookie. It's a 4 phase boss fight that looks more like a WoW raid encounter than something out of a JRPG.
Riposte
Member
First off: "just there to make a game more difficult?" Why do you downplay developers handling challenge?
I've already spoken on "options being optional", so I'll go with a different approach assuming you've read that. How does this excuse not apply to any and all errors made in game balance (in other words, any and all errors in game design as far as "options" are concerned)?
For a heavy example, let's say a game can be cleared by mindlessly mashing the "A" button. No moving, no other attacks or maneuvers, just the A button. Perhaps it does a melee attack and enemies just walk into it and get infinite'd to death. Now you could say "You don't need to do it". Okay, I don't... but the game still sucks.
Phonomezer
Banned
Dumb generalisations either way.
The only things I can agree on ITT are Dark Souls' superiority (to everything) and Skyrim's lacklustre combat.
The only things I can agree on ITT are Dark Souls' superiority (to everything) and Skyrim's lacklustre combat.
Depends on a lot of context. In your heavy handed example I would say the difficulty was low, but if there was an interesting world to explore, other mechanics to have fun with, good lore, or any number of other features, it could be a fantastic game.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's where if you start sucking enough an option appears to let the game play itself to get you past the bit you're stuck on.
It's a whole game designed around the gimmick of Iron Man mode. The game has almost nothing to offer if you, not only if you added in quick save, but if you added in any kind of saving at all that didn't result in your save game being wiped. The addition of quick save itself wouldn't break the game, rather it's the ability to load your save from anywhere that would break it. The intensity of the game comes from the fact that your whole save game is permanently lost if the dice gods fuck you (and they do fuck you, often, resulting in a variable ratio reinforcement scheduling).
This is possible to create in any game, but in games that take longer than like 90 minutes to finish a single successful playthrough, approximately ten people on the whole planet have the patience for it, and for these people we include Ironman Modes in videogames. FTL is built on Ironman, therefore QS/QL make sense to eliminate.
By contrast, Deus Ex does not magically lose its appeal thanks to save/load, or quick save/quick load. Actually, QS/QL come in many types with different implementations, so it's disingenuous to assume that we are only talking about the ability to literally save at any point, even if they are unwinnable, or during combat, or what have you. Saving of all kinds are sometimes disabled if "danger is near". Saving is almost always disabled if you're in the process of inevitably dying. QS is just a convenient form of saving without checkpoints or save points, and not all implementations allow you to save scum during combat.
It is also unfair to focus purely on the negative outcomes of QS, and not on the positive ones. If used properly, QS reduces frustration in difficult encounters by allowing you replay only parts of the fight, instead of the whole thing. It encourages experimentation at all points in a game (Crysis 1 is a game that I believe benefited massively from Quick Save). It also means you don't have to replay large sections of game if checkpoints were placed improperly, or worse, they don't even exist.
This is an argument for taking out quick save in only one type of game, but actually these kinds of things can be encouraged even without eliminating it, by making the consequences of some actions far removed from the action, and also far-reaching. Thus, we can keep cool experimentation ("wow, I'm going to chop that dudes head off to see what happens short term then load to go with the choice I'm actually going to make") The Witcher games were already mentioned herein.
But your hatred of QS seems to be implying that you think the default position should be that they are not included in games, which is the opposite of my thinking, which is that it should always be there, unless the game is especially harmed by it. Even then, I should say that hybrid solutions ought to be considered before outright removal of saving on the go (i.e. no saves during combat or when enemies are near).
Lowlander2
Banned
I don't really know what the thread is actually about, but personally playing through Resonance of Fate, the "false sense of security" difficulty is the biggest turn-off. If you're even slightly behind the curve in a dungeon, you're fucked. You can't turn things around.
Riposte
Member
You shouldn't be looking for other ways for that game to be good, because we are not talking about weighing good and bad qualities. We are talking about whether or not bad qualities (which are "optional") should be weighted at all.
The point is that you are excusing responsibility from the developers and telling the player to finish balancing their game (making a new game in the process). At what point can we say they were the ones who made the game and thus are responsible for its design decisions?
As an argument used for quicksaves, it doesn't hold up. It is not impossible to ignore them, but we shouldn't then ignore that we are ignoring them. This is more so true in games which are built around them.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Let me put it to you straight. If there was a checkbox when you started a new game that said 'enable quicksaves y/n', would this solve your issues, or would the fact that some people do it still "ruin the game" for you?
Well now you seem to be saying that quick saves are inherently bad. Can't really do much from there.
Riposte
Member
Well, I'll skip to this post then.
I think I've more or less already stated the answer to this. This would "ruin" the game less. If we were to measure the negative influence of quicksaves by looking at the number of bad choices (choices which unbalance the game or break immersion for example) they present, it would be a dramatic difference. (This is what Ironman modes amount to anyway. They are difficulty settings. EDIT: Although Ironman modes don't include checkpoints and autosaves.)
I can't think of a good execution of them (i.e. a game that is made better BECAUSE of them, rather than needing them to fix poor design). It would probably be a waste of time to try to suggest one to me. Like, I don't need to hear "Skyim!!". I actually stated this in another post. I get the suspicion people are ignoring my posts which reply to other people. That's probably not a good idea since I'm only talking about one topic throughout them (and I'm not trying to repeat myself).
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Hmm, what are you talking about?
AcceptableGhost
Member
Bad options are bad though. There is not much difference between a god mode button and quick saves. Ideally something as experience ruining as quick saves should be buried in menus or presented at the launch of a new game. This is of course only if the devs have a real save system though as there are plenty of older, great pc games saddled with the worst saving scheme available (quick save only) and are only designed around that.
revolverjgw
Member
I don't know what I'd do without quicksaves in western RPGs. I like experimenting with game conditions too much, and you generally have a lot more choice in how you approach situations in these games compared to JRPGs. A simple one that comes up a lot is using either lethal force or speech to deal with an NPC (and regarding speech, sometimes you can choose to charm or intimidate, which can change the outcome). Even if the consequences aren't anything more than a different conversation afterwards, I often feel the need to try all of them to see how people react and what rewards/penalties I get for each method.
Exactly, in JRPGs it's not necessary since the whole game is usually linear and railroaded anyway.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Eh, people talk as though there's a huge difference in "choices" in your average WRPG. The only games that thoroughly explored it are the Witcher series.
While WRPGs may be made more "casual", I like them because they offer freedom to the player on how they want to play the game.
For example, say you find Skyrim not hard enough. Make rules for yourself that you have to follow.
1. Only saving in Towns
2. Limit number of weight you can carry
3. Permadeath
4. etc.
On the other hand, you can play the game just as it is designed and still get a lot out of it.
For example, say you find Skyrim not hard enough. Make rules for yourself that you have to follow.
1. Only saving in Towns
2. Limit number of weight you can carry
3. Permadeath
4. etc.
On the other hand, you can play the game just as it is designed and still get a lot out of it.
AcceptableGhost
Member
It's something that most devs (*cough*Bethesda*cough*) really should work on, that's true, but WRPGs still offer a lot more choice than JRPGs ever did. And some developers, like Obsidian, really excel at it.
partyphone
Banned
And Bethesda gives you a big ol' sandbox to have fun in.
They design a world, some characters, maybe an over-arching story, a load of quests and some rules. The rest is up to you and I think that's the way RPGs should be.
I was giving my thoughts on the OP, I should have quoted.
OP mentioned that he didn't like casual mechanics. I was just sharing my thoughts that a lot of the casual mechanics can be worked around in WRPGs should the player choose.
I fucking hate that when someone says that.
You just need to simply not use fast travel
You just need to simply not save
You just need to simply pretend to die from one bullet
You just need to simply ... and so on.
We are not some shaolin fucking monks I need to have some rules to fallow made by developers.
revolverjgw
Member
You don't need an ending-changing momentous decision to have a positive impact on the experience. Even the smallest choices entertain and amuse me. A moment in Risen 2 comes to mind, seeing as I just beat it yesterday evening. You track down a traitor on the beach (optional quest if you care about it) and have the option to kill him or leave him on the deserted island to rot. Or if you've been working on your firearms tree you can use a speech talent where your character automatically shoots him in the head in the middle of a conversation. It's fun to see how your party and PC reacts when you kill him in cold blood, fun to accept a duel with him to see what happens/what he drops/what your character says, and fun to see how he reacts when you show "mercy"... and you might even see him again down the road for another quest... I didn't see this guy again but that kind of thing happens where quests can be cancelled by murdering someone or triggered by not. It's just an NPC with a small role that has no effect on the story afterwards, but if a game has enough small moments like these, they add up and flesh out the world and the characters. Plus, like I said, I like trying all the methods because they're all fun, especially in a well-written, funny game like Risen 2. It's the kind of thing you don't see in JRPGs (and I'm cool with that), so I don't miss quicksaving in those games. But I couldn't have lived without it in a game like Risen 2.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Eh it's still not as substantial as much as hope people make it out to be. One or two choices just ends up with having different loots, for instance. Would've really loved it if all choices are like Witcher's, but sadly most WRPGs (note I use WRPGs in reference to modern ones, I prefer CRPGs for the old ones) are more of giving only an illusion of decision.
Hell, even said "freedom" doesn't feel substantial in said games. Sure, Valkyrie Profile 2 is linear in progression but goddamn they made it so that each dungeon and fights are well developed with its really amazing battle system.
Like I said, most of them ends up just being unfulfilling because they didn't really leave much impact. It doesn't even have to be about the ending. It feels more like waiting for a reaction for just a moment that loses its appeal.
Moff
Member
uh no, not at all.
the witcher has great consequenzes though, but choices are a strong and profuound tradition in wrps in general. not all of them handle it as thogoughly as the witcher series, but its defnitely more present than in jrpgs and just one of many reasons why I strongly prefer wrpgs.
and on-topic: mass effect is hardly a wrpgs, if you want a casual wrpg look at skyrim. its for wrpgs what call of duty is for shooters, the pure casual game. but not all of them are like that, although there is certainly a trend towards casual with all big budget games (and wrps usually are), but that is true for all genres.
if you want to see how hardcore wrpgs were in their prime, be ready for some of the kickstarted ones in the next year.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Sounds like a pretty shit video game.
partyphone
Banned
Whoa we got a tough guy over here.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Why actually design games anymore? Just put some sand in the box so players can make their own castle!
partyphone
Banned
You mean like Minecraft?