GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Two, the exact dimensions of your "permission to save" weren't made clear by you in your previous post. You took exception to saves "every 10 seconds," but never said how much you'd allow. Consequently, if I've been aiming at a strawman, it's the one you built.

So what is permissable, in your opinion? Saves every fifteen minutes, say? Saves before entering what you know will be a tough battle? If you can explain that, I think we can have a better handle on the discussion. </STRONG>

Well, if I didn't say, according to you, how much saving is allowed, why did you choose from all possible options an extreme example? As a rhetorical device this is generally effective -- but not in all instances. It is often done in philisophical circles; take a theory, extend it to absurdity, and then turn around and blacken the name of he who originated the thought. That the originater never posited the manifestly extreme position that he is (now) assumed to have positied is easily overlooked, particularly when it is a good writer/orator doing the arguing.

This is what I wrote before: "I am pondering Firekraag; that seems to be a case where the dungeon itself is fine, but the RD is tricky. I would allow a save before going up against that guy, but not the dungeon itself which should be quite reasonable with a party.

Everywhere else a Inn or someplace safe is close. Even in the underdark, I'm imagining saving after talking to the SDragon, and in the drow city saving after each quest. Something like that."

I thought this was pretty clear, saves for the Firekraag quest saves would be allowed something like:
1) CC Inn obviously
2) In the house of the guy whose daughter is stolen
3) In the dryad grove
4) Maybe even after you "free up" the fire-resistant armor and sword.
5) Before Firekraag, in the room between the RD and the jail

Clearly these "save points" are nowhere near a level apart in xp. They are actually fairly close. It is pitifully easy to construct such "save points" that are reasonable (within the game) and not too far apart. Why this was not done is a mystery. I feel like good game design sometimes (oft-times) takes a back seat to perceived marketing demands.

Oh -- and yes -- to another point -- if NWN does NOT fix the "rest anywhere i like" bug/feature of SOA I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Originally posted by two:
<STRONG>if NWN does NOT fix the "rest anywhere i like" bug/feature of SOA I think I'm going to throw in the towel.</STRONG>

Since NWN comes in two parts - single player and multiplayer - that will probably have to be addressed separately.

DMs of persistant on-line worlds will undoubtedly quickly realize that they need to throw nasty monsters at parties that think they can safely rest anywhere they like.

Originally posted by two:
Well, if I didn't say, according to you, how much saving is allowed, why did you choose from all possible options an extreme example? As a rhetorical device this is generally effective -- but not in all instances. It is often done in philisophical circles...

@Two, I assume the best possible of anybody whom I engage in conversation, until they show me I'm wrong at great length. I recommend this to you. First, it prevents misunderstandings from arising. Second, it saves on stress.

You yourself laid the groundwork for the assumption of no-saves:

How do I know these things? I've tried it. When I was playing no death/no reload I would save very rarely, and usually at Inns or outside before camping. That game was much more exciting and fun than a regular Qsave game. I ain't lying, folks.

So while you don't actually state that you're advocating to all what you call "the extreme position" of no-saves, you do speak enthusiastically about it. You may not have intended it to be taken that way, but advocacy-by-example is pretty standard in conversation--and not just among philosophical circles.

I can see what you mean now about your having supported rare saves, but your remarks about the joys of no-saves were underscored with personal enthusiasm, and impressed themselves in a more vivid fashion upon my memory. If you still can't see my point in turn, I suggest we either drop this matter, or take it to personal emails, while keeping this thread on target. Your choice.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Two, I assume the best possible of anybody whom I engage in conversation, until they show me I'm wrong at great length. I recommend this to you. First, it prevents misunderstandings from arising. Second, it saves on stress.

You yourself laid the groundwork for the assumption of no-saves:

How do I know these things? I've tried it. When I was playing no death/no reload I would save very rarely, and usually at Inns or outside before camping. That game was much more exciting and fun than a regular Qsave game. I ain't lying, folks.

So while you don't actually state that you're advocating to all what you call "the extreme position" of no-saves, you do speak enthusiastically about it. You may not have intended it to be taken that way, but advocacy-by-example is pretty standard in conversation--and not just among philosophical circles.

I can see what you mean now about your having supported rare saves, but your remarks about the joys of no-saves were underscored with personal enthusiasm, and impressed themselves in a more vivid fashion upon my memory. If you still can't see my point in turn, I suggest we either drop this matter, or take it to personal emails, while keeping this thread on target. Your choice.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]</STRONG>

Eh, whatever. I think we both know where the other is coming from.

[that sounds rather obscure, and it might be meant that way. Even I'm not sure!]

Originally posted by two:
<STRONG>Eh, whatever. I think we both know where the other is coming from.

[that sounds rather obscure, and it might be meant that way. Even I'm not sure!]</STRONG>

Um, okay.

Oh yeah, and what about the easy access to pausing in the game???? Does anyone feel that they don't abuse that little function

You can't abuse this function. You're one mind trying to control six people through a middle man interface. Without the pause function we'd be back with turn based combat. Dear Lord.

Frankly I'm with Xyx, if only more games had this function......

The inventory swapping is too easy though. Changing a shield or some such should require some animation to be played through first. What's the point of a quickslot in BG2 anyway?

I guess I could mostly live with the absense of Quicksave. The game auto-saves often enough to my liking, in many areas to the point that I don't even bother to Quicksave at all.

I don't think the autosave could be a fall back, it's not laid out in a way that has anything to do with a good save policy.

I'd have though logical places would be just after a tough fight, middle of a dungeon level, activation of a special machine, beginning and end of a level, resting........

Just not before every single combat, trap and dialogue like quicksave. A player should be at risk, through having to replay a section, but not so much as to fustrate.

It is a balance, but makes for a more satisfying experience if done right.

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>I'd have though logical places would be just after a tough fight, middle of a dungeon level, activation of a special machine, beginning and end of a level, resting........

Just not before every single combat, trap and dialogue like quicksave. A player should be at risk, through having to replay a section, but not so much as to fustrate.</STRONG>

If I have to replay anything boring, I didn't save enough.

Great thread. Good arguments. The only two cents I can contribute here since most all basis have been covered: If the quick save feature wasn't available in the game, BW/BIS would be lambasted and the masses would be screaming for it.

I use the quick save constantly but I don't abuse it. If I die, I don't want to have to back and do a bunch of stuff all over again. I still play the game cautiously and accept what happens to the party. Right now, I'm going through ToB for the first time. Korgan just pizza-ed in the yaga shura mountain. He's gone. I could reload the quick save and get him back but I'm not going to. I'll warp in a new tank at the pocket plane and move on.

Time for my input.

I must say I use quicksave often - and I generally avoid games that don't allow you to decide when to save.
The reason - the gamedevelopers should not decide when I want to save my game.
And no, even though I like this game, it does not mean that I want to play the same part over and over again, without feeling progress.
Also somedays, I'm just messing around in the game, seeing what happens if I go there, press this button, kills this person - all these elements could/would be limited without a save, or with a limited savefuction.

And the part about "if the quicksave is there, then of course we will use it, but we don't likeit" that is an attitude I just don't follow.
If you want to limit saves, then do so - it is not that hard, heck you could just disable the quicksave button in setup, and volia - no quicksave.

People will play games differently, some wants one thing, others want something else.
In case of save possibilities - well, if they are put in, most people will be happy.
Thoese who want to save, can - thoese who don't, don't have to.

The reason - the gamedevelopers should not decide when I want to save my game

Why not? Game developers decide how tough the game will be, what weapons you can get, who you can recruit, when you'll be able to do what quest.

They control everything in the game, and if they want to control atmosphere, then they will have to make a call on your saving.

Bioware have decided when you can save in BG anyway, there are times you can't.

Atmosphere can die so easily when you can save anywhere at anytime. Imagine watching a scary film and pausing every 30 seconds.

And the part about "if the quicksave is there, then of course we will use it, but we don't likeit" that is an attitude I just don't follow.
If you want to limit saves, then do so - it is not that hard, heck you could just disable the quicksave button in setup, and volia - no quicksave.

Sigh. It doesn't work, because Baldur's Gate is not designed to be played without quick save. The auto save points have no relation to the difficulty of an area, or the amount you would have to replay.

Plus, you think people who don't like quick save don't want to win? It's like Xyx and his cheese. He works hard to eliminate cheese, just look at his smart Beholders and the way they react to the Shield of Baldurian, but he still uses cheese if it's there.

I played through BG2 using the quicksave, and enjoyed it, but you can't help but feel that the game would have been more fun, and more intense had there been a fresh way of handling saves.

Just look at Alien Vs Predator, probably the most well known modern game without the quick save function. There is no game scarier than that, because one foot wrong ended it all. Every time something threw itself at you, you were in danger because all your progress thus far was in peril. Not only that, but each time you played the enemies were in slightly different places.

It kept it fresh, even if you had to replay, and it kept the game absolutely drenched in atmosphere.

I feel that's a little too extreme myself, and enjoyed the two quick save compromise introduced later on, but it just showed how effective a lack of the safety net can be.

Frankly, I think Bioware should have made a better job of the difficulty levels.

Just think, with a better policy on resting, they could have then set you a specific number of quick saves between rests, depending on difficulty. Combine that with some more aggressive monster respawing, so that getting back out the dungeon is tricky, and you've immediately got yourself something a lot more fun, and that can be toned down by the player as needs be.

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>
...each time you played the enemies were in slightly different places...

...a better policy on resting...

...Combine that with some more aggressive monster respawing, so that getting back out the dungeon is tricky...
</STRONG>

I think everyone would agree that these concepts would really improve the game, but they really have nothing to do with saving.

It's obvious that Bioware was "capable" of implementing a system where traveling from area to area resulted in random encounters, and resting outside of inns could lead to being ambushed - they had those things in Baldur's Gate 1 and it was far better for it.

I always assume that some sort of "marketing survey" went on in developing SOA, and gamers told Bioware that they didn't like:

Exploring so much wilderness

Random Encounters

Getting interrupted when they tried to rest

So those elements were removed. Too bad.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: THE JAKER ]

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>[<snip>
They control everything in the game, and if they want to control atmosphere, then they will have to make a call on your saving.
</STRONG>

Well IMO they shouldn't control when I want to save my progress in the game.
Scenario: I'm playing a game, and can only save at certain points in the game - and time starts to fly and I have to go....oh no, I can only save in 30 minutes time.
Scenario: I'm playing a game, and can only save at certain points in the game - and now I for the 50th+ time fought my way through the same area because I die a a later point and can't save untill I get through that point.

Of course one could argue, that if I only have time to get to point A, when I should have gotten to point B, well I should start the game at that time.
Or that it adds to tension to play the same area 50+ times, because I keep failing another encounter.

<STRONG>
Atmosphere can die so easily when you can save anywhere at anytime. Imagine watching a scary film and pausing every 30 seconds.
</STRONG>

And VCR and DVD-players don't have a pausebutton, and you can't just stop the movie and continue it later when you have time again??
And yes, it is fun to watch the same part of a movie 50+ times, because you can't stop it at one given time, but have to start over everytime your interupted

<STRONG>
Sigh. It doesn't work, because Baldur's Gate is not designed to be played without quick save. The auto save points have no relation to the difficulty of an area, or the amount you would have to replay.
</STRONG>

I'm not talking about autosave, thoese you can't do much about, without hacking the code (I guess it could be done) - but about quicksaves. If you assing another command or delete the command from the button "q" you don't have quicksave

<STRONG>
Plus, you think people who don't like quick save don't want to win?
</STRONG>

Hmm, that must be from somebody else, I've never said anything like that

<STRONG>
I played through BG2 using the quicksave, and enjoyed it, but you can't help but feel that the game would have been more fun, and more intense had there been a fresh way of handling saves.
</STRONG>

Maybe for you, and 50% of gamers, but maybe not for the rest 50%. I still say, don't use quicksave if you don't want to, and don't reload from autosaves if you don't want to.
It is the same with resting - if you feel your party shouldn't be allowed to rest - then don't. To me, this is very simple.

<STRONG>

Frankly, I think Bioware should have made a better job of the difficulty levels.
</STRONG>

Properly - but you can't get everything at one time. And it is human nature (IMO) to keep wanting more, if feature A is fulfilled - then we want feature B and then C etc.
Just look at NwN, the developers have launched massive ideas and features into this game, with a new system for introducing the human element into games, something gamers have wanted for a long time - but now it is not enough, because they have had to cut swimming, riding and climbing to get the game finished in this decade, and (some) people are annoyed at that.


In conclusion I still feel and strongly belive in - just because it is there, doesn't mean one have to use it.
If a save feature is in a game, and one dosen't like to save at thoese times, then don't - it is simply to not press one button.
The same with resting - don't rest if you feel it is out of place.

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>Game developers decide how tough the game will be, what weapons you can get, who you can recruit, when you'll be able to do what quest.</STRONG>

All that is content related. Saving is artificial.

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>I always assume that some sort of "marketing survey" went on in developing SOA</STRONG>

That's probably inherent in sequel-making.

Originally posted by Xandax:
<STRONG>it adds to tension to play the same area 50+ times, because I keep failing another encounter.</STRONG>

That's indeed what you get if you take this to the extreme. That encounter will give you a solidly pounding heart, not because you're worried your party will die, but because you're afraid you'll have to try a 51st time if you fail.

How's that for motivation?

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>That's indeed what you get if you take this to the extreme. That encounter will give you a solidly pounding heart, not because you're worried your party will die, but because you're afraid you'll have to try a 51st time if you fail.

How's that for motivation?</STRONG>

That's why I used the word: tension

Well IMO they shouldn't control when I want to save my progress in the game

And I think they should, so this whole point is neither here nor there.

Scenario: I'm playing a game, and can only save at certain points in the game - and time starts to fly and I have to go....oh no, I can only save in 30 minutes time.

Now that's just being stupid. No one is going to space saves out by 30 minutes. The reason auto saves don't work (as I have pointed out) is because this very senario could occur.

Of course one could argue, that if I only have time to get to point A, when I should have gotten to point B, well I should start the game at that time.
Or that it adds to tension to play the same area 50+ times, because I keep failing another encounter.

One would argue that if you've failed 50 times, then you've obviously set the difficulty too high for your skills.

And VCR and DVD-players don't have a pausebutton, and you can't just stop the movie and continue it later when you have time again??
And yes, it is fun to watch the same part of a movie 50+ times, because you can't stop it at one given time, but have to start over everytime your interupted

Which has nothing to do with anything, since a VCR is a very seperate issue. This was simply an example of how pausing (i.e. saving) can break atmosphere, put across in a way that I thought would be clearer.

I'm not talking about autosave, thoese you can't do much about, without hacking the code (I guess it could be done) - but about quicksaves. If you assing another command or delete the command from the button "q" you don't have quicksave

Again, you miss the point. Quick saves are used as an example because they just take the press of a key, but the point of this topic is the ability to save anywhere.

Maybe for you, and 50% of gamers, but maybe not for the rest 50%. I still say, don't use quicksave if you don't want to, and don't reload from autosaves if you don't want to.

Which then leaves you with what? No saves? There is no save structure in place that can replace quick saves, so your point is mute. Not using quick save is only an option if you're looking for a rather insanely difficult challenge, which is not what I'm after.

Properly - but you can't get everything at one time. And it is human nature (IMO) to keep wanting more, if feature A is fulfilled - then we want feature B and then C etc.

Quite possibly, but my point (which you missed) was that this would link in with saves, and that a better difficulty policy would have allowed for a better saves one.

In conclusion I still feel and strongly belive in - just because it is there, doesn't mean one have to use it.
If a save feature is in a game, and one dosen't like to save at thoese times, then don't - it is simply to not press one button.
The same with resting - don't rest if you feel it is out of place.

Simple not to press one button? LOL! Try it. To say it's simple just boggles the mind....Myself, I want to win, so I use quick saves, but I also want the developers to challenge me. That doesn't mean however that I'm going to summon a few Balors to support every street ambush mob.

Why should the player have to make up the rules? You either have save anywhere, or save points. There isn't a middle ground (except via difficulty levels).

Originally posted by Quitch:
<STRONG>
<snip>
Simple not to press one button? LOL! Try it. To say it's simple just boggles the mind....Myself, I want to win, so I use quick saves, but I also want the developers to challenge me.
<snip></STRONG>

Actually I do - I often don't quick save because I don't want to, it is me that controls that button, not the other way around.
And I rarely load from autosaves.

My point about not using quicksave and not to reload from autosaves was not that one shouldn't use save.
It was simply an illustraion of that one chooses where to save his game.
If for instance I as a player dosen't feel that one should be allowed to save unless in a tavern - then I only save in taverns. It isn't hard. Again, you control your own actions.

And the VRC and DVD thingy - I know you only used it to simplify, so did I, to state that there are more ways to view a given situation.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

I don't really see the point in not saving. You save to prevent having to re-do a part of a story. How much fun is (since we're into the VCR analogy) a movie if you constantly rewind stuff and have to watch it again?

Tension / suspense / excitement should not depend upon feeling bad about having to do something over and over again. That simply builds on frustration. Instead, it should build on the story.

You should feel bad about letting Vicky die just when she started to open up. If you want to keep feeling bad about it (it's your party), just keep playing that save. If you want a happy ending, you reload.

What's the point of doing this another way?

no quicksave is definately more frustrating then having it

no quicksave has ruined many a game...

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>I don't really see the point in not saving. You save to prevent having to re-do a part of a story. How much fun is (since we're into the VCR analogy) a movie if you constantly rewind stuff and have to watch it again?

Tension / suspense / excitement should not depend upon feeling bad about having to do something over and over again. That simply builds on frustration. Instead, it should build on the story.

You should feel bad about letting Vicky die just when she started to open up. If you want to keep feeling bad about it (it's your party), just keep playing that save. If you want a happy ending, you reload.

What's the point of doing this another way?</STRONG>

One point that keeps being made again and again, by those that dislike QS, and which seems to be easily ignored by those that think QS is Ok, is NOT that there won't be save points that are reasonably close. There WILL. If something bad happens you don't like, you WILL be able to go back to a save point. You WILL spend between 30 seconds and 10 minutes replaying some stuff however (depending on where the last save point was).

The issue is not with reasonably close saves. Even saves 5 min. apart are FAR better then what we have now, which is insta-save everwhere anytime. This is the issue.

I really don't see how anyone can object to save points 5 min. away from one another. Are you really telling me you don't want to replay 5 min? Ever? Wouldn't you rather replay 5 min. every once in a while if it increased your sense of tension, realism, and participation in the game? I would, for one!

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>I think everyone would agree that these concepts would really improve the game, but they really have nothing to do with saving.
I always assume that some sort of "marketing survey" went on in developing SOA, and gamers told Bioware that they didn't like:

Exploring so much wilderness

Random Encounters

Getting interrupted when they tried to rest

So those elements were removed. Too bad.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: THE JAKER ]</STRONG>

Sadly, I think this may be totally on the mark. Don't you just love the marketing "concept" here? OK, we have a best-selling game, a huge hit. Let's do a survey to see what we should CHANGE. Uh, guys. It was a best-seller. Remember? The kind of thing you can't just MAKE happen. And you want to start tinkering? What makes you think the audience even KNOWS why they like a game a lot? Sure they say they "dislike exploring wilderness" and maybe they do superficially, but on another level maybe it was part of what the game seem huge to them, involving, epic. It's hard enough for subtle and knowledgeable people to make changes to a sucessful formula; throw it open to the masses and you are sure to get some awkward result.

You can see the same result out of hollywood again and again; the best movies, that get the biggest laughs and scares, are not the "mass middle market" engineered ones, rather the smaller movies that got "overlooked" and did not get the big studio treatment, thank god. Remember Shakespeare in love? Big hit with the masses. Not a great movie, but far better that studio crud from that year. Can you imagine - just imagine -- what a marketing survey would have done to it? Same for over-hyped American Beauty, but it also was spared studio interference, etc.

um, sorry off topic here.