I wish all games would just let you save whenever you want to! Why is using checkpoints and auto saves so common?

At least add a quit and save option if you want to avoid save scumming.

These days I just want to be able to squeeze in some gaming whenever I can even if it’s just quick sessions. That’s annoyingly hard in games that won’t let you save.

I wonder what the reason for this is?

  • Davel23@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The thing I fucking hate is when the game doesn’t make it obvious when a checkpoint is activated. Then you go to quit the game: “Everything since the last checkpoint will be lost”. Well WHEN WAS THE LAST MOTHERFUCKING CHECKPOINT, ASSHOLE?

    • 995a3c3c3c3c2424@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate that even when it is obvious. If I save and then immediately quit and it says “everything since the last save will be lost” I’m always paranoid that it means I didn’t actually save correctly.

      • Erk@cdda.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “obvious” means, I think, that it says something like “last saved 5 seconds ago”

        • 995a3c3c3c3c2424@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, I hate that too. “I’m going to lose 5 seconds of progress?! Oh no!” It ought to be able to see that I didn’t do anything progress-relevant in those 5 seconds and just skip the dialog…

          • fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Now you’re talking about doing a save state comparison to avoid one line of dialogue. Have fun with the preceding lag spike, I guess.

            • Skates@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Add counters to progression:
              20/180 quests completed
              1805/9456 dialogue choices explored
              567/568 npcs killed
              95/102 areas explored
              And whatever else you define as progress

              Add this info into your save data. When quitting the game, open the most recent save, read the counters, compare to current values, display a nondescript “you’ve had a little/a lot of/no progress since you last saved, are you sure you want to quit without saving?” Shouldn’t take so long that it triggers a lag spike, I don’t think.

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Will a change in position be considered a progress though? How far?

                There are a lot of questions to answer in such a case, so I’d argue that a timer is good enough

  • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a large part of why, with older games, I prefer to use emulators, even if they’re available to me in other ways. I love the “save state” option. It’s terribly exploitable, of course, but it sure is convenient to be able to save literally anywhere.

    • howsetheraven@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The exploitable argument never made sense to me for single player games. I play Fallout, if I wanted anything and everything with a 100ft tall character, every companion, and infinite health. But of course I don’t do any of that because it would ruin my own fun.

      • Piers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue from a design perspective is that many players have a tendency to optimise the fun out of the games they play. Meaning that if there is a fun thing to do that you carefully made for them to enjoy but there’s an unfun thing to do that wasn’t the point but is a slightly more effective strategy, many players will find themselves drawn to do the unfun thing and hate playing the game, whereas if they had only had the option to do the fun thing, they would have done, wouldn’t have cared in the slightest about the lack of a hypothetical better strategy not existing and loved the time they spent with the game.

        Good game design always has to meet people where they are and attempt to ensure they have a great experience with the game irrespective of how they might intuitively approach it.

        So… Not having ways for players to optimise all the fun out of their own experience is an important thing to consider.

  • trashhalo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Omg remember games that didn’t have saving but had a code you had to write down on physical paper to get back to where you were?

  • GTG3000@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    Русский
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reason is “Game state is hard”.

    If you want to save, you gotta be able to take the current state of everything and serialize it, then read what you’ve serialized and put it back. If you only do checkpoints, you can make assumptions about game state and serialize less.

    Generally, it is much easier to develop AI and such when you never have to pull it’s state out and then restore it, because if that is done improperly you get bugs like the bandits in STALKER forgetting they were chasing you after a quicksave-quickload because their state machine is reset.

    With checkpoints, you can usually say “right, enemies before here? Dead or dealt with. Enemies after here? they’re in their default state. Player is at this position in space. Just write down the stats and ignore the rest.”

    And autosaves just make it one less menu to fiddle with.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate when folks ask for this and assholes say “people will just use this to save scum, don’t cheat.” As if working adults with children should be able to dedicate a whole hour totally uninterrupted.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, who cares? It’s your game; play it however you like. I mean, isn’t the whole reason why people play video games is to have fun? If save scumming is your idea of fun, I say scum away.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem being that a lot of people don’t actually know what it is that will make them happy. Winning is good, right? Yeah, but not if it’s too easy. Being to save the game state at any point makes a lot of games much too easy to be any fun. And while you might argue “well just don’t save all the time,” people are also bad at creating their own handicaps to increase fun.

        Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization (see: OSRS Ultimate Ironman) but by and large there’s a reason why the most popular kind of games are set up the way they are.

        You ever play Monopoly Go? Straight-up not fun because it’s basically impossible to lose.

        • StantonVitales@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Winning is good, right? Yeah, but not if it’s too easy

          That’s how you feel about it, though, not an objective thing everybody feels the same about. I absolutely cheat whenever I’m finding a game too difficult, and I assure you, I’m still enjoying the game. I don’t know what people get out of what I find to be the extremely infuriating act of repeatedly failing over and over until I finally get it right, but I have not ever felt the sense of accomplishment I’m told I should feel after finally beating something I struggled with. I feel angry and like I wasted a bunch of time when I could have been enjoying something more fun.

          I’m just trying to have a good time, not compete with myself or prove that I can learn just the right way and right time to hit certain button combos or whatever.

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. The too-easy levels of notfun are very far away from the too-hard levels of notfun.

            2. Different games are for different styles of fun and for different people. Heck, some games are more like walk-through stories than actual games. If the game is too hard for you to enjoy, then that game just isn’t for you, that’s all. Let other people have their difficult games and find a different one to enjoy. When I played Monopoly Go and found it boringly easy, I didn’t complain that they should make it harder so I could enjoy it, I just recognized that I wasn’t the kind of player they were targeting and found something else to play.

            • StantonVitales@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This seems to act like games and their default difficulty options are commandments carved in stone when they’re not. If I find a game to difficulty to enjoy and then find it enjoyable by cheating, that’s what I’m gonna do.

            • probably@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              These are subjective statements though and different people want different things. And difficulty variation can broaden the audience while not really changing the game. Sometimes I love a fight. Sometimes I want a story. Sometimes I want to couch coop with my youngest kid and he struggles with some games that he otherwise loves (looking at you Cuphead) that an easier mode would totally fix. And he absolutely loves Sonic, but the originals would be unplayable for him if not for modern saving and non permadeath. Or emulation with save states and cheat codes.

              Why are you trying to convince people that if a game is too difficult or long periods between saving doesn’t work for them then it is their fault and not that of the game design. That’s a weird stance to take. If someone designed a car that was generally very nice but with the gear shift next to the passenger seat door, would you say that is just a car for people with super long arms or would you say that was a poor design choice that is going to massively limit an otherwise nice car?

  • ______@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only reason is hardware limitation. I imagine it’s more difficult to load at any point in the game in a massive game due to how much is stored in your memory.

    Let’s say you’re playing a game and there’s 6 NPCs outside and they’re doing their own thing.

    If the game has a traditional save system, when you exit the save location it’s normal for these entities to rest let their position. Maybe at best their properties (maybe they were wet because of rain) are saved.

    But it’s much easier to just not save any of this info and reload everything from scratch and only save your progress and location.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ironically Bethesda games track tons of stuff on the world state and still let you save pretty much anywhere.

  • MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like the answer is twofold.

    Either the developers hit technical limitations of their save system and couldn’t reliably restart everything. I feel like RDR2 did this because most of their missions were very specific scripted sequences that needed to be kept on track from the start. A lot of roguelikes are unable to save during a run or within a node of that run. For example Peglin and Void Bastards. It’s much easier to say what node or position the player is at than all the AI states, combat, etc. Additionally, automatic saving has always been difficult. Everyone knows the whole “the game auto-saved and now I die instantly over and over again” bug that happens in any game. The way to negate this is to use checkpoints with areas where you know the player isn’t going to get attacked. Another way is to try to detect when you are in combat or not but this can lead to the game never saving. Overall it’s much easier to just save a state that you know the player will be okay to start back up in.

    Or the designers felt like it added something to the game like in Alien Isolation. Save points allow you to exit and designers are trying to focus on keeping players playing. So save points are also an exit point. When you allow the player to save, you allow the player to exit without feeling like they must continue going. Designers use this to try to keep their games more engaging. Super Meat Boy removed a few exit points from typical platformers in order to make the game faster. A lot of games try to be so easy to keep playing that they make it hard to stop. In some ways, this can be seen as a dark pattern in game design. Typically though, designers aren’t trying to be nefarious but instead trying to keep the game engaging.

    • buckykat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The right way to handle auto saves potentially being at bad times is to just keep the last 5 or so of them, and allow multiple manual saves too.