Should quicksaves be removed from all gaming for good?
No, but I'd like to see you removed from existance you piece of shit. Never post on this board again.
>>344410205
first post best post
Then how would PC players finish their games?
No.
Stop posting you useless waste of fucking oxygen.
Yes, fuck savescummers.
> pcucks want to consolize their platform further
>>344410159
No.
Why should I have to spend ages doing the same thing I just did, possibly several times, just so that I can get another shot at completing something?
Should we also just remove the ability to save anywhere from games like Pokemon as well? Of course not, that would make no sense.
>>344410159
no. get rid of autosaving instead
On first playthroughs.
>>344411378
because git gud?
>>344411378
>ability to save anywhere from games like Pokemon as well?
You can't save during battles
>>344410159
why?
>>344410159
naaa long ass RPG games like TES or witcher need save files.
too many variables to crash, glitch or fuck up
>>344411713
savescumming casuals
games being developed to rely on and encourage savescumming
>>344411603
>games are serious business, you guys! git gud or git out XDDD
>>344410159
Nah
Just alot 1 save slot so you can fuck yourself over with bad quicksaves
>>344410159
Hell no
Either don't include saving at all or let me savescum in peace
Games really should experiment with saving systems more though. Like Hitman.
Playing Witcher 3 without quick saving would have been fucking horrific. It isn't a matter of skill either so try not to parrot 'git gud' like the walking broken record you are.
Should quick saving be used more sparingly? Yeah
Should devs try to find a way to prevent scumming?
Yeah
Should the feature to quick save be removed entirely?
Fuck no, you moron.
>>344410159
the better question is what is the better save system, checkpoints where when you die you just teleport to city or or normal save that when you die and must reload old save file
>>344412423
>people actually WANTING a single save slot
wow /v/
Who said you have to use them?
>>344411473
But autosaving can be good, like autosaving in intervals of 1-2h or upon entering a menu.
I like Paradox's solution. No achievements if you can savescum. You can still scrub it up, but you can't pretend you did it legitimately.
>>344412659
1 save slot per character/playthrough you dingus
Why do you care about how someone plays a singleplayer game? It doesn't affect you
>>344412624
Passwords
>>344412624
>reload old save file
might as well be scumming at that point
Quicksave and quickload provides extra mechanics, why do you want to dumb games down by not being able to save yourself? It'd remove an entire part of responsibility for the player from the game
>>344413082
but with checkpoints you usually keep everything you got till you death, in gothic case, you could lost 2 hours of gameplay if you forget to save
>>344412850
Yeah I am a fan of that as well.
>>344412423
And what woudl that achieve? What positive would that bring to a video game?
>>344413331
Restore some semblance of difficulty while allowing for the convenience of quicksaves.
>>344413428
So let me get this straight. Someone somewhere may be doing an inconsequential thing you don't approve of and that is your argument for making the very framewok games are built upon regress by 20 years?
Reload one/save deleted is the best quicksave
Stops the scumming but don't need to hold on for a checkpoint to quit
>>344413563
>Regress
They would have to had progress in order to regress, anon.
>>344413217
I prefer "save stations" where you can choose to save and reload from. Even with multiple slots, it can be difficult if the stations are few and far between enough. There's also very little potential for save scumming.
>>344413676
Complete freedom regarding save slots is factual progress from a technical point of view. Progress you want to undermine because of some retarded iteration of "git gud" faggotry.
what if i told you that in some titles, its availability and ease of access is a design choice?
>>344413692
I'm pretty sure Dino Crisis 3 had save stations that turn off after using them. Either that was a difficulty setting perk or always part of it.
The game was hard and tense as fuck. Imagine Dark Souls with raptors and your bonfires go out after using them, but you still have to backtrack.
Did maybe Ninja Gaiden from 2003 or whatever have this too on hard? I remember some difficulty around them.
>>344413804
Lowering the bar of the entry by dumbing down the medium is regression.
Holy Fuck.. no one actually enjoys video games on this board
>STOP HAVING FUN
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE
You should kill yourself, senpai.
Disallowing quicksaving is just laziness on developer's part. It's a mirage of difficulty, cause if you fuck up on the last obstacle of a long series of difficult ones, you're sent back to the first one where the savepoint was. Thus, it adds a lot of arbitrary time to the game length (which in console's case is already very short for many triple-A titles, such as 5-10 hours long only).
It would be an interesting experiment to remove quicksaving from all the games that used it and add savepoints instead, cause the games would take many times longer to complete, thus ridiculing the game lengths of the games that already use savepoints.
Tl;dr, quicksave doesn't allow for devs to be lazy cunts
>>344414070
No, introducing options is not regression in any situation.
What I'm getting from this is that you're too much of a sissy to not abuse saves like mad just because it's possible.
>a pre-mapped, fully integrated and ready function doesn't deserve to be usedcheckpoints are the happy medium for many genres desu
>>344414395
Introducing options is regression when those options dumb down the game as a whole.
>Implying I don't abuse any retarded mechanic the devs throw at me
I tend not to play bad games that allow savescumming though.
>>344414605
>blame devs for your lack of self control
>>344414605
You know why it's called an option/ Because it' optional. If you feel lik the game is worse off because of it, don't use it.
You are creating a nonexistent problem in your mind and arguing against it.
>>344414782
>>344414806
>This game is good
>But only if you introduce artificial rules that exist outside of the game
Fucking casuals
>>344414923
Yes? Just because you put a green arrow in front of a statement does not make it invalid.
>>344415178
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears to a game's faults does not make it good.
Imagining the mona lisa over your dog's fresh droppings does not make it nice to look at.
You must be suffering some serious buyer's remorse if you have to go out of your way to change a game drastically from it's base state to call it good. Then again I shouldn't be to surprised, Todd has made a nice living off of people like you.
>>344415708
You're still trying to claim that an ability to save is the game's "fault" and now even equate it to droppings. No matter how you twist words, that is simply not true.
>>344410205
S A V A G E
A
V
A
G
E
>>344415869
When the ability to save freely breaks difficulty and makes obstacles meaningless, it is a serious fault.
>>344415946
Example?
>>344410159
Fuck no! Do you have fucking down syndrome like pic related?
>>344416049
Any game with quicksave as a feature that doesn't have some other mechanic explicitly to keep it in check
>>344416362
I asked for example, not a sweeping statement.
>>344416475
I'm not typing up 100+ games that all share the same flaw m8.
It doesn't take a genius to understand why being able to save freely before you have to make risky decisions or face difficult obstacles, and being able to choose from an unlimited save pool trivializes any kind of challenge the game might've had.
>>344416362
>>344416049
not that guy but there are hundreds of popular games like that, not sure why you would need examples
in games like half-lifes and neverwinter nigths you can save even during combat, load as many times as you need to kill one enemy, then save again and repeat until you beat the encounter.
>>344416857
And I still don't get what's wrong with thi. In any arcade game, you can throw in a quarter to respawn on the spot. But apparently removing quarters from the equation makes the process bad and wrong and casual?
>>344410159
When I'm playing through a game, make a lot of progress, and the game crashes somehow or I die, and I didn't save, it makes me never want to play the game again.
>>344417069
Throwing in quarters to continue in an arcade game was always considered casual.
>>344417069
No one in this conversation ever said that was good practice.
>>344417069
using quarters usually means you wont be able to get the best ending or you wont be able to compete with highscores, so its not a valid comparison as there is a clear disadvantage to doing it.
>>344416819
1 example, not 100+ big boy
>>344410159
That's the best fucking feature ever. It's so much fun to try the sequence you want with plenty of different approach (think Crysis, Deus Ex, Dishonored) without having to go back to a fucking checkpoint that is archaic as fuck. Some of my best memories are quickloading the same short gunfight in max payne again and again because it was so fucking good.
Also it prevent shitty suprise such as "too bad you explore this hallway first because a cutscene lock the door behind you and make you unable to explore the other one unless you reload a checkpoint 10 min away"
>>344417378
TES
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Fallout
People abusing a mechanic isn't a reason to get rid of it. The opposite of being able to save anywhere is games like Dark Souls where save points are hours away from each other and any small slip up means you have to repeat all that gameplay. And checkpoints don't work in all games. It's find in linear games but having checkpoints in open games (not even necessarily open world) usually just turns out to be shit. Look at the checkpoint system Hitman Absolution used and how awful it was on its more open levels.
I do think it's a good idea to disable saving during fights though. Some games do do this. It kind of helps savescumming a bit but it also keeps players from breaking the game where when they load a save they're immediately killed or get themselves backed into an otherwise unwinnable game.
This thread is so fucking old, boring, and useless.
Yeah, it sucks that people abuse quicksaves to conserve every piece of ammo, every point of health, etc.
But by removing quicksaving those people will probably just use trainers.
Instead of being so short sighted, realize what quicksave is good for; quitting whenever you want!
I don't want to play for another 30 minutes, hour, 2 hours, whatever amount of time to reach a "save point" and finally be allowed to quit.
Pressing F6 and then quitting is much easier and usually less immersion-breaking than finding a "save point"
>>344418041
sure but saving should at least be limited to outside combat, or non-combat areas depending on the game.
>>344417758
Last time I played Stalker and forgot to quicksave occasionally I ended up having to repeat over 2 hours of gameplay. Call of Pripyat has a checkpoint system and while you might be able to argue they could make it better if t hey removed quicksave, there's no real good way to decide where you would put checkpoints in an open world. Would it just autosave every time you go back to a safe area? People could abuse that too. What if it's a segment like Red Forest in SoC where it's fairly long with no safe areas and tons of enemies and random pockets of radiation? The game might save at some point while you have radiation poisoning or when you're surrounded by enemies. This was a problem with Metro's autosave where it would autosave at the worst time.
>>344418253
What if there's a 2+ hour segment in a game where you're constantly in enemy territory?
I want quick saves in Dark Souls I think i'd enjoy it a lot more with that
>>344416049
Any turn based game where you can quicksave mid-battle, see the enemy attack, and quickload to counter.
>>344410159
t. console trash
>>344410159
No. Quick saves are the only thing that let developers have fun with unexpected stuff.
>>344418445
All that I know of either use seeded rolls or offer an ironman mode. Or both.
I think if you remove quicksaves from games, like all vidya, they would gradually make story mode games to appease the plebs.
>>344418350
>What if there's a 2+ hour segment in a game where you're constantly in enemy territory?
Seems like a very specific case, but surely you are still not fighting nonstop for 2 hours? I can't think of a game like that, but if there is one, and checkpoints dont work for that specific game, then sure go all out on quicksaves I suppose. Or maybe limit their number.
>>344418445
The only people who do that shit are cheaters though. So they'll just cheat if you remove the ability to save freely.
Removing quicksave makes cheaters have to jump through a few extra hoops to get the results and makes it impossible for non-cheaters to get the benefit of quicksaving, which is being able to freely quit without reaching a checkpoint/save point.
I wouldn't mind either way quicksaves are more of a convenience than something mandatory. They're nice but not really needed.
>>344410159
Quicksaves are really only used with PC games and are needed. Name me one PC game with quicksaves that does not crash, glitch, or is just a horrible mess.
>>344418350
>Last time I played Stalker and forgot to quicksave occasionally I ended up having to repeat over 2 hours of gameplay.
I think you need to understand that games are about overcoming obstacles. That's what makes them games by definition. If that's not for you, then perhaps you should take up reading, watching movies, or CYOA books if you want interactivity without challenge.
>>344418850
most pc indie games don't have quicksaves
>>344410267
I feel sorry for /\
|
>>344418937
Having to repeat over 2 hours of gameplay because you make a small mistake is not an obstacle. It's just annoying and doesn't add anything to the game. If you're going to say it's a good thing you might as well just remove saving altogether unless you want to stop playing for the time being like roguelikes.
>>344419062
What's that have to do with anything?
>>344419108
Do you reshuffle the entire deck every time you get a bad card in Solitaire?
Games are meant to have a lose condition, they're meant to punish you for mistakes. You're meant to replay them and git gud if you lose at them. It might be time for you to accept the medium wasn't designed for you, and hasn't been designed for you for the entirety of human history.
>>344419062
Here is your (you)
>>344419496
I like how you ignored his whole post, inserted shitty buzzwords, then tried to make a card game analogy that does not fit at all.
When you lose in Solitaire you restart the entire game. When you lose in New Vegas you do not restart the entire game.
>>344419496
Solitaire and Stalker (and most video games) are not comparable. Might want to try a food analogy next time.
>>344410159
Nah just limit them
I am playing 7.62 Hard Life right now and shit is working fine
>implying a single person here could complete serious sam TFE or TSE on serious difficulty without save scumming
>>344410159
Should be limited to a quicksave every x amount of mins
>>344411790
Quicksaving in TES games is notoriously buggy as fuck though, same with autosaves. Manually rotating ~5 or so hardsaves every 10 minutes is the way to go, lest you enjoy your saves permanently corrupting.
>>344418350
>dying at red forest at all on max difficulty beyond the first area
>>344415942
U N D E R A G E
N
D
E
R
A
G
E
>>344420087
What if I want to quit during the red forest area because its kind of long and I've already been playing a while but now I have to wait until a checkpoint or save point after?
Developers aren't going to remove a feature from games just to appease some fucking idiot on 4chan. Quicksaves allow people to complete boring as shit parts of video games and then never have to beat them again.
>>344420186
Obviously you have to keep playing, othewise you'll make some tard on /v/ sad
This is from the official Fallout manual.
>>344410159
No since you need them to test out your performance settings vs fps
>>344422749
Not a lot of games use quicksaves now because it's all railroaded and it's hard to lose or fuck up your game anyway.
>>344422852
>it's hard to lose
Protip: I died in Skyrim, anon
>>344422940
Okay, so?
>>344422995
It's easy to lose in modern games. All you have to do is play in a carefree manner. Play without stress or trying. Then you will lose.
>>344410159
Mandatory quicksaves should be removed. That shit is cancer in games like Dragon's Dogma, where you can only make one save file.
>>344414434
took me a sec
Solution: have every usage of quicksaving destroy a random half of your inventory, excluding key items but not limited to inventory only (can destroy equipped gear too).
>>344425327
I'm really glad none of you faggots will actually get to work in game design.
>>344411473
>Game autosaves after a huge decision
>Only one save
I can't remember which, but there was a game I played which would only let you save once every 15 or 20 minutes, it was pretty much perfect
>>344414070
It's not dumbing it down. Check out 90's PC games, they are way harder than modern games and that was facilitated by quick saves. They could throw stupidly hard challenges at you because at worst you'd only have to go back a couple seconds. Now games have to be easy enough for you to get through a ten minute chunk without dying.
