It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Breja: Honestly, is the task of pressing F5 so hard it requires enough of your attention to take you out of the game? It's like saying turning a page brakes your immersion when reading a book.
avatar
Magnitus: It's a meta-detail you have to remember that takes away from the immersion.
It really doesn't. Not for me. Never did. I am honestly flabbergasted by the very idea. Though I guess I asked for something like that when starting this topic.

avatar
Magnitus: It's not a big deal, but if that part is auto-managed, it's an improvement.
Alright, I can get you may want autosave in case you forget to save. Fine. Reasonable. But isn't having an option to also save manually whenever you want better? Is it really an improvement to be at the mercy of checkpoints? Have to quit the game? Well tough shit, have to find a checkpoint first or lose the last 15 minutes. Died? Well let's go through the same easy 10 minutes again to get to the difficult part again. And now let's do that five more times.

avatar
Magnitus: Some people are of the opinion that things should be more manual, but what those people often fail to realize is that if that were the case, a lot of the technical and scientific progress we are experiencing would not be possible.

Yes, we need computers and automation if we are to achieve all that we can achieve. Let's not fear automation, still plenty of stuff that only a human can do.
For Valen's sake, we're not talking about the future of technology and mankind, it's not the Three Laws of Robotics we're discussing. It's saving in video games. Call me crazy, but I don't think manual saving in games is impeding our growth as a species.

avatar
Breja: Honestly, is the task of pressing F5 so hard it requires enough of your attention to take you out of the game?
avatar
Fenixp: It's unnecessary, that's the consntatly repeated argument around the discussion. It would be like criticizing Grim Fandango for not having the old 'look at', 'talk to', 'pick' etc. buttons - and even those have more utility and can be used for immersion more than having to constantly think outside the game about saving.

avatar
Breja: It's like saying turning a page brakes your immersion when reading a book.
avatar
Fenixp: Turning a page in a book is comparable to the necessity of launching a game, going trough main menu and loading save state, not with continuous saving. It's a technical limitation without which you can't read a book / play a game. In fact, there's nothing comparable to constant saving while reading a book, which is just another argument against forced manual saves - getting to the end of a page automatically prompts your brain to turn the page, just as necessity to leave or launch the game prompts you to do so. There's no such thing with quicksaving, you don't hit a limitation or end of page - you just have to keep thinking outside the game that 'Boy, now I need to save'.
So, basically the answer to my question is "yes". Well, sorry to hear that. It must be very inconvenient for you.
Post edited February 26, 2015 by Breja
avatar
Breja: Alright, I can get you may want autosave in case you forget to save. Fine. Reasonable. But isn't having an option to also save manually whenever you want better? Is it really an improvement to be at the mercy of checkpoints? Have to quit the game? Well tough shit, have to find a checkpoint first or lose the last 15 minutes. Died? Well let's go through the same easy 10 minutes again to get to the difficult part again. And now let's do that five more times.
I'm talking about an intelligently implemented auto-save that would save continuously.

The harder way to implement it would be to segment the game experience into noteworth transitions (ie, finished a fight, reached a destination, put a new object in his backpack, moved X distance, etc, etc). Of course, this requires specific knowledge of a particular game's domain and is not very portable across games, but would certainly make for a fascinating problem for a programmer to solve.

A simpler more globally effective scheme might be to save every minute which would be an apt tradeoff between performance and saving often enough.

They could even make it so that it saves every minute, phased over 10 save games, so that you could go up to 10 minutes in the past, by minute decrements.

If you want to make it more customize-able, let the gamer decide how often he wants his game to auto-save and over how many save games.

The point is that while it isn't as straightforward as programming a calculator, this isn't rocket science either. They have solved far more complex problems with "AI" and expert systems.

avatar
Breja: For Valen's sake, we're not talking about the future of technology and mankind, it's not the Three Laws of Robotics we're discussing. It's saving in video games. Call me crazy, but I don't think manual saving in games is impeding our growth as a species..
I think it all touches that argument: When is the machine doing too much for me? Shouldn't a human be doing that?

For me, it always come down to: Is this something only a human can do? Is this even interesting? No? Then, let the machine do it.

I've yet to notice a gamer rave about how fascinating saving his game is and how much depth it adds to the experience.
Post edited February 26, 2015 by Magnitus
avatar
Breja: Alright, I can get you may want autosave in case you forget to save. Fine. Reasonable. But isn't having an option to also save manually whenever you want better? Is it really an improvement to be at the mercy of checkpoints? Have to quit the game? Well tough shit, have to find a checkpoint first or lose the last 15 minutes. Died? Well let's go through the same easy 10 minutes again to get to the difficult part again. And now let's do that five more times.
avatar
Magnitus: I'm talking about an intelligently implemented auto-save that would save continuously.

The harder way to implement it would be to segment the game experience into noteworth transitions (ie, finished a fight, reached a destination, put a new object in his backpack, moved X distance, etc, etc). Of course, this requires specific knowledge of a particular game's domain and is not very portable across games, but would certainly make for a fascinating problem for a programmer to solve.

A simpler more globally effective scheme might be to save every minute which would be an apt tradeoff between performance and saving often enough.

They could even make it so that it saves every minute, phased over 10 save games, so that you could go up to 10 minutes in the past, by minute decrements.

If you want to make it more customize-able, let the gamer decide how often he wants his game to auto-save and over how many save games.

The point is that while it isn't as straightforward as programming a calculator, this isn't rocket science either. They have solved far more complex problems with "AI" and expert systems.
And all that would still be inferior to the simplicity an infinite usefulness of manual saving, at the moments you choose, preferably with the option to name your saves. At least in strategy games and RPG's that will always be better. What if I want to go waaaay back, not minutes. What if I'm about to do somethin balls-out insane and want to save now, and name the save "balls-out" so I can easily find it if I need to go back after the crazy thing gets me killed an hour or more later?

Have your autosave too, if it's that much of an effort for you to save. But not at the cost of removing manual saving. Don't make my life harder with your "improvements". I'm doing fine with my antiquated manual saving, I don't exert myself saving, and I prefer to do stuff on my own.
Post edited February 26, 2015 by Breja
avatar
Breja: Alright, I can get you may want autosave in case you forget to save. Fine. Reasonable. But isn't having an option to also save manually whenever you want better? Is it really an improvement to be at the mercy of checkpoints? Have to quit the game? Well tough shit, have to find a checkpoint first or lose the last 15 minutes. Died? Well let's go through the same easy 10 minutes again to get to the difficult part again. And now let's do that five more times.
avatar
Magnitus: I'm talking about an intelligently implemented auto-save that would save continuously.

The harder way to implement it would be to segment the game experience into noteworth transitions (ie, finished a fight, reached a destination, put a new object in his backpack, moved X distance, etc, etc). Of course, this requires specific knowledge of a particular game's domain and is not very portable across games, but would certainly make for a fascinating problem for a programmer to solve.

A simpler more globally effective scheme might be to save every minute which would be an apt tradeoff between performance and saving often enough.

They could even make it so that it saves every minute, phased over 10 save games, so that you could go up to 10 minutes in the past, by minute decrements.

If you want to make it more customize-able, let the gamer decide how often he wants his game to auto-save and over how many save games.

The point is that while it isn't as straightforward as programming a calculator, this isn't rocket science either. They have solved far more complex problems with "AI" and expert systems.

avatar
Breja: For Valen's sake, we're not talking about the future of technology and mankind, it's not the Three Laws of Robotics we're discussing. It's saving in video games. Call me crazy, but I don't think manual saving in games is impeding our growth as a species..
avatar
Magnitus: I think it all touches that argument: When is the machine doing too much for me? Shouldn't a human be doing that?

For me, it always come down to: Is this something only a human can do? Is this even interesting? No? Then, let the machine do it.

I've yet to notice a gamer rave about how fascinating saving his game is and how much depth it adds to the experience.
In general, people are accustomed to the idea that games require save files in order to bookmark your progress. As such it should be no more of an immersion breaker to deal with save games than it is to deal with other meta- factors which come as part and parcel of gaming, like changing your volume, following button prompts, reading subtitles, performing complex control inputs and so forth. Autosaving should be a fall back, not a replacement, for manual saves.

There are very few games which implement autosaves intelligently. Developers often don't show enough rigour in quality assurance to play through their game and figure out all the sweet spots where an autosave would be highly desirable. Even when they do, their opinions are unlikely to align with 100% of players. The best game I've played for intuitive autosaves was Batman: Arkham City, which autosaved after every collectible (of which there were 3-400), every interior/exterior switch, after most significant fights and after most significant exchanges of dialogue. Even then, I've watched people play it who complained about not knowing when it saves or not knowing how to make it save when they want to quit, since in an open world game you can spend quite a long time traversing the map and mucking about without ever triggering anything 'significant'. That kind of worry sort of eclipses the minor convenience of never having to manual save.

Autosaves generally have to come with an onscreen indicator, so that the user knows not to quit out mid save, and I find this indicator popup no less immersion breaking than a manual quicksave. Also immersion breaking is having to wait in anticipation for such a moment, watching for the save indicator in the hopes that the game you're playing is smart enough to save when you want it to, for example when you want to quit or you've just performed something difficult. Added to that, the more frequently you make autosaves, the more likely you are to have cataclysmic save corruption in the event of a game crash, simply because more background saves means more likelihood a crash will occur during one. Saving also tends to cause hitches in graphical smoothness in some games, which is a big problem if it's going on all the time.

Until all that is resolved across the board in gaming, I don't think there's any argument to be made that autosaving should be a replacement for manual saves, as opposed to just a supplement.