Saving is Ruining Great Games
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Does saving ruin great games? #baldursgate3 #gaming
🐺 Channel Membership - / @franklygaming
🔵 Discord - / discord
Socials
Twitter - / franklygaming
Instagram - / frankgarcia.10
Support My Work
🐺 Channel Membership - / @franklygaming
🎮 GOG Affiliate Link - af.gog.com/partner/FranklyGam...
NOTE Any game purchased on GOG after clicking my link will support the channel!
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:09 The Baldur's Gate 3 Realization
8:53 For Those That Disagree With Me
12:43 The Solutions and Analysis
20:29 Closing Thoughts - Hry
wow my mind has been completely changed and everything this guy said is just totally 100% right such a great guy
No one gets me like me
Only 1 person matters - you. If you feel proud about your video, it is already victory.
Sus. Very sus....🤨
Op I think you have something brown on your nose, lol
FRFR.
I love save scumming, and nobody can stop me.
Haha ya my opinion here definitely isn’t the popular one 😂
@@FranklyGamingit's not about "savescaming bad" or "savescaming good", its about "play as you like"
@@Barmem ya I address that directly in the video! I think it can be about more than that too
If it's a single person game who cares about how much someone saves, a game is about a person's own fun.
I can. Give me your console or steam pass lol.
Yeah save scumming is bad, that’s why when I die in a game I uninstall it, that’s my canonical end the main character dies and doesn’t complete the story.
LOL the only proper way to play
Based af
I think deploring save scumming is a weird take. Why would anyone want to limit someone else’s options in their own game? I just think that’s silly lol
It's not about embracing failure state, it's about making failure state actually fun to be in.
Ya I talk about this in the second half of the video! Disco Elysium first and foremost
Agree. That is why I hate too much RNG in things, where failure means replaying last 15 minutes.
Yeah we as gamers have become so accustomed to AAA games being expensive to make content for, so most only have the illusion of choice/consequences. So we expect most games not to have much unique content on additional playthroughs, save for minor dialogue and combat mechanics changing with your character build/class. So yeah, definitely, if the "content" from a dice roll is just a game over screen or dead end setting you back, the dice roll should give the player more agency than just random chance. Skill rolls greatly simplify full mechanics, but D&D and most RPGs are combat games so they tend to only flesh out the combat. Lots of charisma based combat classes for story RPGs as a result.
Or just dont play rpgs with choices. You’re essentially locking the story into one path aka a linear story. Plenty of linear games for you 🙂
@@Nyxesgaming Piss off and let people enjoy themselves.
I mainly play games to gain satisfaction and enjoyment which I usually don't get in real life.....save scumming is very essential atleast for me✌.
Ya totally get this too I talk about it in the second half of the video this idea exactly actually, I think it would be cool to have both
I don't really subscribe to the escapist viewpoint myself, I don't play games (or participate in other forms of art) to escape from reality, I see it more as enhancing life, participating in the evolution of culture and ideas, or to stimulate testosterone or for other reasons, BUT I agree with having the "savescumming" option..
I do enjoy many games that don't have constant saving or that handle it differently ("Don't Starve", "Outer Wilds", From Software games), but for the genre of big RPGs (like "Baldur's Gate 3") I think they might be a necessity for me to ever finish any game.
One reason would be: Because I value my time, and in a way making a lot of saves is a way to get more out of a game and be more precise about the experience. I finish plot-based games rarely anyway. If I don't see a reason to lock myself into an uninteresting path in a game or a path that is not as well realized by the developers as an alternative one, I love the option of playing with my options.
Yes, I value immersion, but I don't play games only for the immersion, or for a super-personalized experiences. Our whole social media is filled with "personalized experiences" and I am somewhat sick of them. I want to see and experience what other people experience, as well. Yes, one answer would be "Just play the same 100+ hour game to the end a second time" or "watch others play on Twitch" or something, but nah, as I said I value my time a little too much and the game industry needs to get out from their obsession with "content" and hours of gameplay for there to be a chance I'd see some such lack of save options in such big games as a progress.
There is a great chance I will play "Baldur's Gate 3" through a second time, but the reason is that I have seen the difference some of my choices make, how much meaningful stuff is behind each decision. Yes, the ability to influence the game in quite personal ways is one of the strongest aspects of the game, but to "get a game" and "what the developers meant by doing something" on a higher level, to "really appreciate" a game I have to get an understanding of how the decisions matter on that "higher level". In the past I have played games through multiple times to get that, when the games proved to me worth it. For example I played the first "Silent Hill" games through to get pretty much each of the different endings, and in those games almost everything except the ending was the same, so there was much repetition, but for a "100+ hours modern game" it would be too much to ask of me. It would be a little too taunting to ever even start such a game. The ever-present saving mechanic and the option to re-skill and re-class your characters later on really just saves an RPG like that for me. If it were the other way, it might be a great game, but no thanks.
Also, I appreciate when some forms of media try to emulate some other, how Tarantino took inspiration for structuring from books, etc, but to really realize the potential video games as a medium has, trying to "emulate" something from previous mediums, like movies or tabletop RPGs probably isn't the whole truth. Video games are a very different medium in many ways, capable of creating complex "dreamscapes" in quite new ways, should the medium's strengths be overlooked and abandoned just because something was great about an earlier medium?
Yes, taking inspiration from something older often is a good way into something new, but in modern games the drive to "take away the ability to save" often seems not an inspired one. In some ways "Baldur's Gate 3" even seemed refreshing to me, admittedly partly because I haven't played many RPGs lately, but still it is refreshing to play a game where the developers didn't feel the need to create some artificial saving restrictions to have the game feel more meaningful and/or longer.
Playing a game like "Baldur's Gate 3" actually feels more like reading a book, where you can rewind, reread, re-imagine parts by your own choice, while most modern games seem to want to emulate movies, not wanting the player to have any control over the pacing or major plot points.
I'm all for having games that actually let you save as you want and tailor an experience as you want, for a change, even if it is an un-personalized "high level overview experience" like I was describing.
I'll never forget the 'Glass him' debate with The Wolf Among Us' chapter 1, where a certain decision in the game back-fired to certain players who misunderstood what the choice delivered in terms of consequences.
As a person whose english is not the first language, i remember having the same problem with this and instantaneously save-scumming to select a different outcome.
I can't imagine choosing incorrectly over a decision so late in the game's chapter, and being hit by a 'anti-savescumming' measure if Wolf Among Us didn't let you replay a certain scene in the chapter.
I feel that if a feature such as hardcore mode or auto-save only, such as Elden Ring for example, it needs to be designed in a way that the player has time to understand the full consequences of it, or at the very least having fallback features such as the Church of Vows's Atonement, so that way you can avoid or minimize the player from dropping the game altogether after a big mistake.
Videos games are entrainment and how individuals wanna entertain themselves is really only up to how they want to partake. So I don’t know as long as the person is having fun that’s really all that matters.
Ya I address that in the second half of the video! I for sure agree in some cases but other times I think it’s cool to create games for different reasons
As an Achievement Hunter:Saving is a bless I hate replaying games
Saving would be a godsend for achievements for sure it would be a pain without
I feel like this is a great subject for another video. I like the trophy/achievement mechanic for the most part because it makes me play the game differently than I might be used to/comfortable with.
I think achievement hunting is kinda dumb. Just play the game and let the dice fall how they may
You don't hunt for achievements the first time. If you boot up a game that you have played for 0 seconds and achievement hunt without actually playing the game, you REALLY are not playing the game in the first place. Achievements are there for people that beat a game, really like it and want to do more with it and clear challenges. And in that case, nobody would fault anyone for using all the tools to complete the challenge.
I save scum in BG3 for 2 reasons: 1) Sometimes the mechanics of items are a little ambiguous in a way that is communicated to the player, but in a way that my character would be aware of in-game, and 2) bugs. I know that the first reason isn't necessarily justifiable to everyone, but when I'm in roleplaying mode it really just breaks my immersion and attachment to story outcomes if it's just because I bumped the wrong key or a status buff didn't feel explained well enough.
Mechanical inconsistencies are 100% why I save at certain intervals too. So many times where I've thought "this could either be really fun or really bad, but I really want to try it". Save-scumming is the only reason I'm able to risk stealing certain things or sneaking certain areas, and there's only been one time I've actually had to load (pick-pocketing mishap, NPCs just know somehow, which was NOT expected lol)
But without the safeguard of saving, the risk wouldn't be worth ruining 100+ hours of progress. I don't agree with the idea that having the option ruins the game somehow, it's all about choosing not to use it. But I guess the temptation is too much for some, which is hard for me to relate to, admittedly! Just different overall mindsets!
I think that this is part of a broader issue, which is that most games don't really do much to make failure interesting. Some of my best memories in D&D came as a result of rolling a natural 1 (which is why I'll probably never play as a halfling). However, in video games, usually failing a check or picking the wrong option means either just missing out on content or getting an outcome that's objectively worse, but not in an interesting way.
There are some exceptions. Disco Elysium is a great one, as you mentioned. The Witcher games also deserve a shoutout because they often conceal the full consequences of your actions until much later, so save-scumming isn't really an option. Also, while a lot of their outcomes can feel really bad, they pretty much always feel bad in a narratively interesting way. Another example is a certain fight in Dragon Age Origins, where if you lose, it's not a game over, but rather your character gets imprisoned and either they or their companions have to find a way to break them out. But these are all still very much the exception and not the rule.
I recognize there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here with save-scumming. It's really hard for devs to justify putting significant time and effort into scenarios that occur as a result of failure if they expect that most players will just reload before they even get a chance to see them (in that Dragon Age example, some players missed the prison break sequence because they'd reload whenever the fight started turning against them). And, when most failures don't lead to interesting outcomes, that just teaches players to save-scum more. The only way that I see out of this conumdrum is for both players and devs to take a leap of faith and embrace failure as a vehicle for interesting storytelling.
Your point is completely understandable and I can agree on almost all points except one: the mere option to save and load is an option I don't want taken. If only to safeguard against bugs on the one hand and on the other hand I don't have that much time because of my job, so at least I can go back to a key moment and enjoy the adventure again in an alternate version with a little time already invested saved.
Save scumming is a thing everyone has to decide for themselves. I don't like the idea of elitist "pro gamers" gatekeeping over hardmodes where you can't save. Please let people have the option so that everyone can decide for themselves.
Ya I try to address it some at the end of the video it’s for sure a hard situation to handle and that’s why saves have a lot of up side too, I just think it would be awesome to see games with less saving for sure, and thanks for watching!
Fair point. But problem with that in BG3 is that failing a check or making a wrong choice can completely lock you out of content, content which we want to experience. Imagine an anti-save scum player then doing a whole other playthrough just to reach that same point and fail again at the same check, being locked out of the content twice and being forced into the same "branch" of content again, while their intention on this 2nd playthrough was to experience the other branch.
So its up to the player to decide how much they want to tolerate these things in their playthrough. It's valid advice to embrace failure sometimes, but I wouldn't say save scumming ruins the experience or that the feature should be removed.
Imo, I save scum because sometimes the randomness in RPGs is heavy handed, or too ambiguous, and it just doesn't feel fair. An example is in Nioh 1 and 2. You could craft your own armour and upgrade it to get better stats. But the stat bonuses were randomized. So if you got bonuses you didn't like, you just wasted a bunch of materials for nothing. What was the answer? Reload the save.
Another reason is because dialogue options can often times be way too ambiguous, or down right deceptive. I'm sure we've all seen something like:
1) I'm not interested
2) Explain your dwarven faith
3) I like your beard
4) Attack
You choose option 2. What do you expect? Maybe an inquisitive bit a dialogue, right? Something like "can you tell me more about your faith?"... instead, you'd get "Explain why I shouldn't eradicate you rock-worshipping midgets!". And I'm just like what the frack?! That's NOT the tone I wanted! It can sometimes feel like dialogue options are a trap, rather than an opportunity to influence the conversation in any intuitive way. And so what's the answer? Reload the save.
Imo, if developers wanted less save scumming, they'd make choices less ambiguous and remove some of pointlessly random elements of games that serve only to waste the player's time. Accepting the consequences for your actions only works in games, when you aren't tricking the player into negative consequences.
For example, Dragon Age Inquisition has a point where you have to choose to side with the Templars, or the Mages, in their war. That's a choice that has gameplay implications throughout the rest of the game. But there's no trick here. The player knows if they side with the Templars, they'll be fighting mages, get to save some templars, make enemies out of some NPCs, etc. And the same the other way around. Because the choice is significant, but NOT deceptive, it feels like part of the game to roll with the consequences because you chose it. I haven't heard of many players save scumming because of that choice. I've heard of people replaying the game because of that choice. I don't get that same feeling from selecting "Explain your dwarven faith" and my character instead threatening to wipe out all the dwarves if they don't give the right response. You see the difference?
exactly! sometimes, I'm playing this game and it feels like some dialogue options are a trap, like you put it. it just doesn't feel good when dialogue options, or responses to those options, just come from left field and are completely out of line. it kind of takes me out of the game and I feel like, oh this is one of those things where the developers intentionally tricked the player. I hate that. it's like having a bad GM that just wants to ensure someone in the party is screwed. it just doesn't feel fair, as you put it. so yeah, save scum lol
Just wanted to say I think you got the most interesting gaming channel on youtube, also love the "Kerry Eurodynes song" you added at the end! :) I think the easiest solution to "solve" this would be to add "No save/hardcore modes" to games that only keep the last 2 save points and keeps overwriting them like you said. That way if the last one bugs out you just jump slightly further back
really appreciate that! And ya that is a great idea honestly and would give people some options, really wish Baldur's Gate 3 had this
Agreed, the games clearly designed to be just as interesting and fun when you fail. Disco Elysium comes to mind as well, half of the experience is living with your decisons and consequences.
Exactly! That’s why I had to bring up disco Elysium in the second half for sure, and thanks for watching!
I also love the Witcher games in that respect, you don't know until much later what your decisions did
I haven't gotten around to Disco Elysium yet, but given its reputation, when I play it, I will not save scum.
Disco elysium is also one of the reasons that you need save scummimg as a player option. It is the poster child for games that are improved by not save scumming but still at the end of the day because of how random the checks are you can lock yourself out of content and soft lock the game by failing checks you've built your Harry to pass. In those situations it'd be very acceptable tp save scum, you know, so you don't have to restart the whole fuckin game.
At the end of the day removing a players ability to save is like removing the option to change a graphics setting, most games would be improved by playing them on the graphics the devs intended but very few actually need it to get the core experience and before you remove it you better be sure your players can actually run the game without it.
Do I reload a save to change a choice I made... never
Do I reload a save because I was one hit away from winning a long epic fight, me and the enemy are on 1hp and my character decided this was a great time to have 3 critical misses in a row........yes
Why does it feel like that is every fight for me 😂, but ya I get that for sure I talk about that in the video some I think both are fine though
When I was young, the only video games I could play cost me a quarter. If I died, I had to cough up another quarter. That's hardcore.
Then I bought a computer. The magical ability to save was one of the biggest selling points. Some games have auto saves only. Some games let me save when I want.
I love playing hardcore Minecraft. I also love that I can save or quit virtually every computer game when it's dinner time or I need to hit the head - then pick up where I left off. It's an option and I have the willpower not to use it if I choose. That dog in BG3 is so dead when I run into it next time - and it's because of your video. ;)
My problem with this take in bg3 is that you miss out on a lot of content if you make some decisions.
Maybe they shouldn't have made the scratch thing a matter of dice rolls. For a lot of other stuff, failing a dice roll can be interesting. Even losing a companion early on because you fail a certain dice roll and didn't want to break your paladin oath. Because while you then don't get to see that companion's storyline, you do get to see how different things are without that storyline intersecting with your own.
Or, if this happened on your first playthrough, you get to experience how different the story becomes with that companion.
But with scratch, it's just a matter of having a dog or not. Having the dog is obviously the only interesting option.
I pretty much completely agree with all you said in this video. One way Larian could have reduced the possibility of save scumming is letting non-combat dice rolls occur a while before you actually see the dice roll occur. Like, maybe you miss a dialog check and reload to just before, but actually, the game had already determined that dice roll when you arrived into town. Not sure how feasible that is to make though.
Edit: oh hang on, you mention something like that for XCOM.
Edit2: come to think of it, a Dark Souls style respawning would actually work with BG3, as there is a lore explanation for it in the form of Withers. That would mean your choices can't be reversed and only combat encounters can be tried again.
BG3 in particular has so many different paths and options that failure doesnt feel like "missing out on content" because you'll miss out on other content even if you succeed.
Atm I'm playing several co-op campaigns and we have a rule: we save frequently but we only reload on "errors" like someone misclicks / makes a *quite harmful* unintentional action or there's a mechanics issue / a bug happens, or "experiments" where someone wants to test whether or not a thing will work under the inherently ambiguous rules of a video game (making sure our logic and the game's logic match up before we commit to a plan; this is different then just making a stupid plan or the plan going wrong)
Fuck that. Let me save where and when I want. My time should not be held hostage and if I don't reload, that should be my own choice.
Some of your scenarios just don't work well for a game. Yes, having the consequences of you screwing up and your DM holding you to that is cool. But games are not smart enough to account for crit 1s on stuff where you really shouldn't be able to fail because you are actually skilled.
I certainly agree with you on certain points of this! I do think the save type can depend on the genre and I like the room-room save points you can find in games like Celeste. A great example for a way saves can be done is TUNIC, it’s a really good game and I suggest you give it a look if it appeals to you and you haven’t already played it, it’s kind of a mix between outer wilds, souls games and Zelda. I can’t tell you much more about it because of it’s outer wilds similarities (Based on knowledge). Oh and yes I am guilty of save spoofing in the past, but I don’t actually play too many games where it is possible. Maybe more evidence to your point. Back on room - room saves I couldn’t have finished a certain kaizoesque level I once did if it wasn’t for room saves (one room took me 12 hours)
Anyway, great video quality again, have a great {time period}!
Thanks for watching and supporting as always! And I need to give tunic a try never have, saves for sure have their upsides too
I love the trust fund baby comparison. For me, it makes for a couple of playthroughs. There's one perfectionist playthrough and several playthroughs that just play out as the dice roll.
I just don't have time to replay long sections of a game. Saving frequently is the only thing that allows me to get through a lot of games. I understand the thought process behind not save scumming but it's just the only way I will enjoy games.
The point is I paid to be told a story, extra to be told all possible outcomes of a story, and I want to see what I paid for.
I've been saving a lot in BG3 not because of save scumming but because there sometimes seems to be really big windows where there are no autosaves, wiped on a boss fight and was sent back 30 minutes, that's irritating. Esp when combat and dialogue have a lot of chance, a fight you just rolled over once can be misrable a 2nd time because of bad rolls
That being said, I'm glad I made good choices and didn't kill Scratch.
Ya the autosave system needs to be improved for sure if they did that and added a no save game mode I would be so happy
But that being said, some of the best memories of this game are from rolls I failed.
Want this?
Nope
Are you sure? It's pretty cool!
Nah
I think you do
*fails roll*
See, you wanted it
Me, after watching the video: 🤨
I have a policy of not saving during battles, or dialogs (I didn't know you could save during dialogs until very recently) so if something doesn't go right, like getting the party wiped out, I have to restart the whole fight. As for dialogs, I usually go with the flow unless, like you mentioned, a dialog option ended up having the wrong tone (instead of a jab, it was a mean answer - for example).
I did save scum that certain book that asked my bard to roll a Nat20 (because she ain't too wise). I use the benefit way too often so I said "fuck it" and kept reloading, only took me 5 times (with 3 inspiration rerolls each time).
thanks for watching the whole thing! ya save scumming for sure is useful sometimes I just know I would enjoy if I couldn't so I wouldn't do it for things like scratch lol
The only person who should be allowed to save is the one with the most DETERMINATION.
Yes, that is why i like resident evil games(ink ribbon etc.) Or Kingdom come deliverance (save schnaps)
Perhaps more games can take a page out of the rogue-like/rogue-lite genre and include a game mode where saves are disabled/limited to check points/only in certain conditions, like outside of combat or character interactions? I'm not 100% sure how it could be implemented but I'm betting there's a way?
You implement it by “only save when exiting the program”. The risk is a bug ruining the run.
I've played games with single saves that would auto save on exit and force you to stick to your choices. More often than not it was a miserable experience because the game communicated information poorly and mislead me. Not to mention misclicks or bugs. Really, I rather have saves I don't use because I don't trust most games. It works on a select few, but on every game? That'd be true hell.
My best experience was probably with Kingdom come deliverance. You had a limited number of beers you could drink to create save points but otherwise you saved on exiting the game. Overall rather fair.
Having real consequences for my actions is so not what I'm looking for in videogames. I have that IRL already and it sucks. I rather have the games let me have fun according to my mood. Sometimes I am in the mood to take whatever comes, but most often I'm not. I won't be having any fun if I'm being forced down a path I'm not enjoying. Save-scumming doesn't reduce the fun for me. Most of the time it guarantees it.
Sometimes I also like to try some kind of personal challenge, like beating a game only with melee weapons, or perfect ghosting a stealth game (which is absolutely impossible without save-scumming).
What ruined the fun for me plenty of times was save-points and other stupid systems. I grew up in the 80s and 90s playing games with those systems, and they often get tedious, they hurt replayability, hinder exploration and personal gameplay challenges. I ended up ditching quite a few games because of those systems.
In some cases it might not make a difference, but most core games only have something to lose from removing that ability, and nothing to gain. Players can choose to use it or not. It's entirely optional. But everyone will benefit from it in some way at some point.
I’m “save scumming” when the game doesn’t receive my actions as I intended them. If I misclick and my characters all run head first into an ambush, I reload. If I’m going very carefully through a trapped area and can clearly see the traps but my character is an idiot and runs onto the explosion, I reload. If I fail an interaction with an NPC because I rolled poorly, I live with that.
In Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, I’m save scumming because some of the DC “checks” give you more information about the world and I don’t want to miss that
Try Pathologic 2. Game with great atmosphere, where you have to take a big responsibility, followed by consequences. After watching the video i bet you will love it
I have seen this suggested a lot I really need to try it it sounds awesome
@@FranklyGaming It's worth it. When in description developers are saying that "hardest difficulty is intended experience" it's really something. Just gonna say I've never experienced so much stress from a game, in a good way.
I say let people play games in any way they want. Save scumming is sometimes a mechanic in itself, don’t be the kind of gamer who gatekeeps others from doing whatever they want with an interactive experience.
Ya that is exactly what I am going for I would say, so letting people have their games with saves and others have it without so people can chose what they want, just like how dark souls has no easy mode, so it is great for people that want that sense of accomplishment, but other games can have easy modes for people that want it.
A player can choose not to save scum. The option is there, but it doesn't mean you have to use it. On another note, too many big games randomly crash, or files become corrupt, and you must delete saves or go further back in your saves.
With the Mass Effect Trilogy, ME3 has outcomes based on choices made in games 1 and 2. Total gotcha moment. lol
In the end, it is the players' choice. Save or not to save. My main reason for saves whenever throughout a game is to reload my save when I fire the game back up.
i would love to get rid of saves.. until lords of the fallen glitched and deleveled me to 0. without the option to roll back a save point i just refunded the game. rip lords of the fallen
I'm less concerned about save scumming as I am about excessive quick saves. If I lose 3 hours of progress because i didn't stop and quick save every five minutes, I'm not having fun.
100% agree there, in a non reload system it needs to be saving constsbtly
You are correct, but thats not stopping me! I have a mild inability to accept faillure!
You legend hahah
I can respect your perspective on this, but I would hate BG3 if you couldn't save frequently and likely wouldn't have had nearly as much fun XD. An example - I did Moonrise completely out of order by breaking into Balthazar's office. It was my first time in the game that I used turn-based mode to break into a restricted area and I don't think I would have risked it, 60+ hours in, if I couldn't have saved. Because turning the entire tower hostile wasn't a repercussion I wanted to deal with, and it also wasn't a repercussion that felt realistic - yet what if the game didn't offer a way to talk my way out? Or what if even interacting with the door turned everything hostile automatically?
I didn't need to "save-scum" because Larian didn't include those repercussions ^ but a bad experience with the "pick-pocketing" mechanic showed me how important it is to be aware. I don't think it's reasonable that every NPC immediately knows you stole from them, even if your slight of hand is successful, but unexpectedly that is how it works. Knowing the game sometimes reacts unreasonably to your choices, or is unexpectedly harsh, means I wouldn't have felt as free to play my character the way I wanted to, or explore and experiment, if I was blowing away so many hours of progression due to disappointing mechanical responses.
This is a long way to say - I think you are just viewing "saving" in the wrong light. You see it as a get out of jail free ticket, but I see it as an excuse to try things that are absolutely crazy. Generally I'll roll with the outcomes - but if the game is unfair, I don't have to. And there's something really great about that, because I can learn the game as I go and figure out how to really get the best character experience from the systems the developer provided.
So saving really makes great games better for me - because great games don't hold your hand. And if I'm gonna experiment, I want to be able to tell a god "fuck you". And I don't want to be out 50 hours of playing when I do it XD. (I didn't actually do this, because Lae'zel is my bae and I'm behaving, but I LOVE that I could have)
That being said, I killed the hostage with the hag because I didn't know the "Alt" key highlight existed and couldn't find a lever... so I shot the cage and dropped her into the chasm unintentionally. Didn't reload, rolled with the consequences, and I know next playthrough will be significantly different as a result! There's merit to not reloading, but... I still think this video would be better framed a little differently
@franklygamingextra Gonna be honest, I had an argument myself while watching your video. At first I was thinking, why shouldn't I choose the path if I have the power, and if the choices were removed, I would fundamentally not be able to create the outcome I desire, hence their necessity. That said, I know that there is something to be said to abandoning control and simply experiencing. I also understand that with uncertain outcome, the intensity and immediacy of the situation is enhanced. So, the long and short of it is, you've won me over w/ your argument. Going forward, I will only load hard-saves at the beginning of a play session, and while I WILL quicksave for instances where I have a total party wipe so I don't lose hours of play, I will no longer be loading quick-saves to alter the outcome of the dice or the consequences of my earlier decisions/dialogue.
Thanks for watching and appreciate the feedback! Ya honestly I do see both sides it’s more I just think games without saves could be so great too and I’d love to see more
i save scum to save my time from replaying the game, its kinds fomo of not knowing the outcome of the other choice. i think id be a great essay to tackle the paragon and renegade morale in Mass Effect or how its hard to be a bad guy.
One time while playing Heavy Rain during detective Norman Jayden's segments I accidentally offed a character during a intense segment. David Cage the creator of HR said in a article that he wishes for the players to play the game all the way through without reloading the game to enjoy the story truly. So even though my mouth dropped at such a moment because it was unexpected on my part I continued through until the end and thoroughly enjoyed the story more for it. Honestly I think it depends on the game and if it is fun to fail equally as it is to succeed. A lot of passionate game developers are inching ever closer to such a balance and I'm all here for it.
Also/ I can't WAIT for Cyberpunk 2077's Phantom Liberty DLC! Cyberpunk 2077 is just such a unique world.
Save scumming is neccesasity for people who don't play games for hrs at end, they need best resolution for a situation or a fight. This is not Elden Ring or Sekiro or Cyberpunk where save scumming wouldn't matter even if save scumming existed existed. I don't want to fail my charm check when my charm is very high for my character.
Totally get that and I address it in the second half of the video, I think some games should keep saved and others remove them for a more “hardcore” experience depending on what people are looking for
Alot of games have missunderstandable dialogue options so I totally understand "save scumming" here and there. Ive chosen dialogue options, which I thought to represent my intention, but my character pulls a twist on it and totally ruins everything.
"Forcing players to accept 'real' consequences for their actions, even when they are sometimes are intended is are what RPGs, and in my opinion lots of games, should be about too" Full stop there. BG3 was made for people who love choice and being able to do RPGs any way they want based on a tabletop game where the DM has lot flexibility. We ain't got time to replay the game 10x to see everything. I will play branching storylines separtely and differently.
I definitely get this side but in that case I think it’s better to make a narrative focused game with little choice, the whole point of choice to me is making it hard and actually impactful, you mentioned tabletop and DMs, the best versions of those aren’t flexible. You have infinite choice, and pure consequence, the ultimate experience in my opinion.
You can just watch other choices on CZcams etc I think would be the counter
I save scum so I can see all the options. Baldur's Gate 3 does have an annoying thing where they make important questions about characters mutually exclusive for some reason. There's a couple instances where I could only ask someone 'who they were' or 'what they were doing', and there's no reason that I shouldn't get to ask both.
The only time I save is before fights in case I die, so I don't lose potentially hours of progress. Otherwise I 100% roll with the dice for the good and the bad. A tip in case people are unaware, if you want true RNG, turn off "Karmic Dice" in the settings. This is on by default and it took far too long for me to notice this. Basically Karmic Dice lowers the chance of consistent failures, for example if you fail a roll a couple times it will basically cheese your rolls to let you win. With it off, you can quite literally fail 5, 6 7x in a row just like real life D&D where you can just simply have a bad streak (or a lucky streak, it works both ways!). Turning Karmic Dice off made my experience so much better and genuine.
Save file are very easy to understand, especially with older guy like me. In the past, wasting 1 hour or 2 because there is no file, you are dead. Restarting way back. Just like college homework of 10 pages, if you didn't save and lose everything, yeah it's going to be painful.
i knew you channel recently but you content is very good quality nice job man,
the only thing i don't like about some games is that sometimes they do offer a no save scum option, but they force it to be "Perma death" and i don't like it, i like to not be able to roll back a save, but if i fail to kill a boss or something i would like to be able to try it again instead of restarting the entire game again.
action and consequence are the best. I was playing through Black Mesa and realised I was saving after every encounter and I was like, (this is boring)
OK, story time:
When I first got my PS2 for my 13th birthday, I was ecstatic. Since it was a (relatively) new console at the time, I also got a racing game with it (I believe it was called GTR 400? Maybe?) Anyway, I played that game religiously, it was so fun.
But, my parents had forgotten a crucial part of this console... There was no memory card. I couldn't save.
That didn't matter to me though, since my last console before that was a veeerrry beaten up NES that my parent got before (or soon after) I was born, and that had no capacity to save either!
I just thought this was how this "gaming" thing worked and for about 3-4 years, I kept plugging at this game, leaving it on for days, weeks at a time, to try and beat this game.
I think after about 3ish years I did it. I finally beat the game! Took what felt like a literal Titanic undertaking, but I did it! I was so proud of myself!
Until Christmas 2004. When I got in my stocking, a PS2 Memory card.
Till this day, I could not describe what I felt. It must have been a confusing mix! But beating that game without a means to save, will remain one of my best gaming memories of all time.
I completely agree with what you are saying, this kind of system would be awesome for RPGs and Immersive Sims. And for future reference, The system you are describing is colloquially called an Ironman Run/Mode, where it used to mean you never save the game and run through the game in one sitting, but the term has since been relaxed to mean only one save, but the game automatically saves over that save to replace it. The only games that use this type of saving( that I know of,) is Paradox's Grand Strategy games (Stellaris, Crusader Kings 3 and Victoria 3 are the most recent releases).
This is the way I normally play RPGs (when I'm not recording them) I use one save slot and overwrite the same save over again. It it my preferred way to play, in my opinion.
Sorry for the massive text wall, wonderful video, and hope you have a great day!
I dont agree with this tbh. Im all about choice giving players the ability to choose or not choose and if they dont want to reload they dont have to. More often than not i feel taking away a choice is a bad thing.
I'm an unconscious roll with the die outcome guy 😆. I would save scum if i remembered to save often enough for it to be effective lol. But i find myself going "ugh wouldnt be worth it to go back that far"
I do save before combat tho
Chad gamer haha
I'm going to argue in favor of Frankly and the video so prepare for a text wall. Don't say I didn't warn ya. 😜
I was playing the Mass Effect trilogy with my sister (her first playthrough, I was playing the game and she was making all the decisions because she really didn't like the combat) and she made several bad calls over the course of the trilogy that led to outcomes she didn't like, e.g. our fish dying because we didn't feed them, and some of our crewmates dying when she made a poor choice or when she didn't make the choice quick enough. Happens to everyone, not a big deal, right? There'll be other playthroughs I'd say, but every time she'd have me reload a save to undo it (had to replay 3 hours of stuff while she did something else in order to save those d@#$ fish lol, and that was just one of them). The one time I said I wouldn't do it because it was against the spirit of the game, that this is a game where you have to make your bed and sleep in it, she threatened to stop playing the entire trilogy right then and there (toward the end of ME2, you know the one). Drove me up the f%^&in' wall. XD
The first time I played KotOR, I chose the bad ending. I don't remember whether it was accidental or not, I was like 10, but even though I knew I could reload a save and make different choices, even though **spoilers for a game from 2003** if you go dark side you have to slaughter like half of your companions including one of the characters that I had a big crush on **end spoilers** , I still went through with it, because it was my choice and I had to live with it. Nowadays, because I grew up with games like KotOR, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age, I don't even think about reloading a save if I make a bad choice, doesn't even cross my mind, I just live with the consequences and maybe do a second playthrough if I really liked the game. That mindset makes every choice such a nail-biter because they really matter.
After I knew that she'd quit if something happened that she didn't like, or otherwise be forced to replay parts of the game, I used my knowledge of the trilogy to subtly guide my sister's playthrough toward the best outcome. Then when we finished the trilogy, she was really happy that she got the best ending, meanwhile I'm sittin' here like, "Yeah, of course you got the best ending, every time you made a bad choice I spent hours of my own time erasing it." (including me grinding multi-player for a few hours solo to get the Galactic Readiness up because this was the original release, which granted I was happy to do because ME3's MP is freakin' awesome, can't believe it wasn't in LE) but she was still really satisfied and happy with it, even though she didn't earn that ending, whereas she absolutely would have quit if I said, "Nope, those fish are dead, should've fed 'em, sorry." Probably would've come along with a punch in the nose if it was the death of a companion. XD Sure, you got the best ending, but how much more impactful, how much more memorable would it be, to live with the consequences of your actions? To know that you lost some friends along the way and it was your fault, but the ones who survived are there because you learned from your mistakes and became a better leader and decision-maker? To know that you actually saved the galaxy through your actions, not just that you made enough of a show of it to convince yourself that you did? And again, if something happened that you didn't like, there's always a second playthrough. Why do people remember Virmire? Because it actually forces you to make a tough choice that you'll feel for the rest of the trilogy.
Point being, while I agree with you that even having the ability to go back to choose a different option lessens the experience, even for players that actively choose not to use it because it's always a thought that's in the back of their minds, for a lot of people, they want games to be an exercise in wish-fulfillment. They want to get their happy ending no matter what, and it ruins the game for them if they can't. We have this culture nowadays that says every game should be accessible to everyone, and I'm not saying don't play a game however you like and however you find enjoyable, what I'm saying is that not every game is for everyone, and they absolutely shouldn't be made for everyone. You always want to get the best ending on your first playthrough? Well, heck dude, I hate to say it but maybe choice-heavy western RPGs just aren't for you, and that's okay. Maybe stick to JRPGs. Also maybe don't play Spec Ops: The Line.
Another game this happened with would be ICO. I played it for the first time last year and it's now one of my absolute favorite games, and one of two games to ever make a grown-@$$ man sob by the end. I wanted to play it with her, but despite how much I tried to coach her, she found the combat too difficult/frustrating, and decided to quit when we were probably just a 1/4 of the way through the game (8hr game for those who are unaware). She tossed the controller to me in frustration and told me to play. I told her that this was a game that you have to play to understand, that it tells its story through its interaction, through gameplay, and the connection you viscerally build over your journey. And she said, "Well, which do you prefer: either you play it and I watch or we just don't play it." In retrospect, I wish I had said the latter, because I played the game for her, and by the end, she didn't get it, didn't even really like it and thought it was boring. Not only that, but like a lot of great games, ICO is a game that you can only truly play once, just like you can never step into a SoulsBorne game again and be as unprepared and helpless as the first time, so the experience is now forever damaged if not outright ruined for her, whereas if I had said we should quit, she could have come back to it after a few years of growth and seen it in a whole new light.
When you make a game, there is often an intended experience that the devs have in mind, the "perfect player" if you will, that they balance the game around, and because at the end of the day they're selling a product, it's their job to make sure that as many people as possible have that optimal experience. If you cater to as many people as possible though, you lose what made the game special and unique. You lose the intended experience. However, if both the developer and the player stick to their guns, then the developer is able to mold the player into the game, rather than the other way around. The player might go through some hardship, but they'll have an experience that is much more worthwhile than it would be otherwise. Something special that they'll remember for their entire life, and not just another game to mark off the list. Which is why the greatest games of all time, are nothing if not uncompromising. So no, Dark Souls shouldn't have an easy mode, you shouldn't watch someone play ICO, and you shouldn't be able to reload your save in a western RPG just because something happened in the game that you didn't like. Sorry if it's not for you. Not everything can be, and if your first instinct is to load a save if you made a choice you don't like, then games with choice just aren't for you. Personally I don't like RTS's. I think they require way too much time investment in order to get good at and start enjoying, but for RTS fans, that level of depth is exactly what they like about it. I'm fine with not liking RTS's, because I realize that they're just not for me. I also don't ask for a hard mode to keep me engaged in Minecraft or Kirby. I think a lot of gamers, casual or otherwise, have a sense of entitlement when it comes to games: that this is what I spent my money on so I better have fun while playing it and if I don't then there's something wrong with the game, but what other entertainment or product at all is looked at through that lens? I don't go see movies that I don't think I'll like and then complain that the movie was bad because I didn't like it and that it should change to suit my tastes. If I see a movie I don't like then I just say "Welp, wasn't for me." (putting aside that yes, plenty of movies are just bad, that's not the point). I think it's sad that it's considered 'elitist' to want to play a game as it was meant to be played or for devs to have an intended experience in mind when creating a game, and that mindset of entitlement will continue to result in the dumbing down of humanity's greatest art form. Dark Souls was special BECAUSE it was hard, not in spite of it. Everyone sucked when they first played a Souls game. They got killed hundreds of times, got frustrated, and wanted to quit. That's the point. Then they keep going, slowly learn how to play, come out of that experience and say it was the best game ever, that it cured their depression and made them love games again. If you want Dark Souls to have an easy mode, then you don't want to play Dark Souls. You want to play something that looks like Dark Souls but isn't. Well, there's plenty of other dark-fantasy ARPGs out there, but it was the most virally popular RPG in years that was so special specifically because you couldn't undo your choices and the people you killed, Undertale. It was the adventure game where you realized that you didn't have a choice, that you can't rewind time and take a mulligan on your mistakes that revitalized the genre, Life is Strange. By removing choice and consequence, you're taking away the thing that makes games special: the interactivity. The biggest argument I hear against this concept is that "I just play games to have fun.", but how much more fun would you be having if you were actually invested in what you were playing? If you really cared like back when you were a kid? Rather than just mindlessly completing objectives, checking an item off of a list, reloading when something challenges or upsets you, finally finishing the game, and feeling nothing.
I think you make som great points but i usually save games not to change my choices but to deal with crashes ang game breaking bugs which I encounter in too many games - another choice could be to accommodate both options - you who like to be challenged with irreversible choices and those who just want to have chill and relaxing experience - depending on the game and my mood I would like to have both options
In games like Xcom I like to increase the difficulty and treat every fight as a puzzle. My goal is to find the best solution for that fight. And yes I do that with save scumming.
Same kinda goes for the fights in Balder's gate 3.
In short games it's a way of fun when things don't go as planned and you have to deal with it. In 25 hour+ stories I don't want to get in trouble later on because of some mistake early on.
So I think in order to stop safe scumming games should not get harder if you make mistakes. Just different.
Doesn't that make the puzzle a simple test of patience for loading screens or trial and error? I'm curious if you've tried xcom on normal difficulty with ironman mode on. How does it compare?
@@Maxx__________ Yes it does, but that's how I like to be challenged.
I have tried some iron man runs in Xcom, and every time I loose a character I quit playing, maybe start over until the next death.
I rather have slow progression than any form of degression.
@@HeintjeMTB fair enough
I only planned to reload a save once and that was in me2 so everyim i cared about could survive but i didnt have to use the save thankfully
I don't say it often, but I have to agree with the redditor. The most important thing is for the player to have fun. For some it's super realistic gritty consequences, and for some it's just getting the outcome they wanted. Both approaches are valid, and both should be an option. If you don't want to save scum, then just... don't. Make it your resolution to not use the save and load options for anything else than entering and leaving the game. If you can't stand by it, blame yourself, and not the developer for putting in the option.
I'm addicted to save-scumming and there is nobody who can help me with it :(
Today I discussed saving and save scumming after watching your video and people were... Stalwart In defending it. I just can't break through the worldview of (quoting here) "but lets say you have 22 CHA bard failing a performance roll not with nat 1 but with, lets say, roll of 12, when 15 is required or a 20 int wizard not knowing who god of death is because they rolled low." No amount of saying that just because you know something it doesn't mean your character knows it. They don't get convinced that everybody makes mistakes sometimes, no matter how proficient they are. They won't accept that failure can open other paths. And even if they do accept some, the fear of removing saves is just too overwhelming.
I know that doing something with it is important to moving the state of gaming forward but if a game like BG3 went with that it'd meet with so much pushback. Even if developers considered all the failures and implemented alternative ways and alternative paths to open I don't think it'd be possible to convince most of the people it's for the greater good.
Despite having persistent worlds in NWN2, on hardcore roleplaying servers, teaching me how good not having saves can be, I still can't force myself to not savescum. Like that one time I became a vampire (and eventually a powerful one after much hardships and almost Astarion-like slave period) which happened due to my single, poorly made decision where I went and not picked the spell I objectively should have to prepare. One I usually did. But not that one time. It was low, I (along with a friend who also got changed) was looking for the cure to no avail, as the hangman's noose didn't appeal to me. And so I continued which allowed me to taste those highest highs.
And even if I occasionally manage to overtake my savescumming habit, you're right with the trust fund analogy - lower lows but higher highs, and we don't know what we're even missing.
This is saying EXACTLY what I mean beautifully put, I truly do think people will realize this once a game pulls it off right
100% agree free saving and multiple difficulty options hurts games big time, thats why souls games are so awsome and every little fight feels intense im shocked no one tried to copy this
Bro baldurs gate 3 is littarly an entire game where everything you do is decided by rolls so saving multiple times in every battle is a must! Like you could get a ton of horrible rolls or a ton of good rolls. Like the final battle took me over 20 attempts on story mode thats how f redicolus that fight is
that stuff for HARD MODE of game, leave saves for EASY MODE
As someone who doesn’t like playing games where the decisions you make can affect the outcome of the story (Detroit become human, heavy rain, etc.) I have to save scum because I’m a “good ending”/“True ending” enjoyer, and absolutely hate when a character dies, or don’t get the “best outcome”. I guess I just don’t like having to replay a whole game just to change a few mistakes, which is why I prefer linear experiences, at least for story driven games.
I dont think save scumming is a problem, if most people do it like me its because the choice they thought they did wasnt what played out (due to bad dialogue texts etc). Theres a great youtube video about this exact thing called "How I Got Through SWTOR" where the player keep doing horrible things without intending to.
I think maybe because you really love immersive sims you want things to be as realistic as possible, in real life you cant reload a save if things dont go your way but in an RPG the whole point (in my opinion at least) is to create the story you want to create. Depends of course on your intended playthrough and what you prefer but I believe thats why a lot of people "over use" saves to get the outcomes they want.
Ya for sure their is upsides to saving too and some players prefer that, it’s more I just like the intensity and in my opinion more meaningful choice that happens when you are forced not see, basically all stuff I talk about in the video.
Thanksfor watching!
@@FranklyGaming I definitely see your point and when I do end up buying Baldurs Gate 3 ill try run through it your way (except for the doggo of course;)
@@andreas5563 don't save scum unless for scratch lol
While I do not fully agree with you on this topic, still good video!
Always happy to watch your uploads
Really appreciate that!
I think a cool optional functionality would be normal saves, but with moments that make a "permanent" auto-save.
Iron man mode is a thing that should exist, but you have to be accepting of potentially unrecoverable game states.
Don't gatekeep. Let those of us who like or rely on save scumming do what we like. I don't have time to replay 30 minutes of gameplay. I wouldn't make it through most games. If we don't want to accept the consequences, then so be it. It's a video game we paid for. You can choose not to save scum. If you don't have the willpower not to, is that what you really want in the first place? Please don't tell me I don't know what I want. Lol, of course I do, and I want the ability to play a game the way I want. The other problem is there are so many games to play. If I only had one game to play maybe your suggestion would work but I like to experience games and move onto the next game. Replaying long portions of games delays that.
Some games have Ironman Save = Quit systems. But for me, if I played that way, I'd need to play the game on a much easier mode. It really sucks to get 20 hours into a Subnautica game and accidentally drown.
If we knew how to beat entertain ourselves we wouldn't need games, only toys.
True, but i still do it. Especially in games like BG3, Fallout, Mass Effect etc, even if i'm perfectly aware it's ruining the purpose of additional playthroughs. I do it because the option is there, if it wasn't, or it was more limited to certain occasions i would be fine with that as well. I think it's because i automatically think i'm missing content when RNG isn't in my favor and i fail a dice roll or event/mission/quest. Maybe if developers made the "failure routes" more interesting, so it's not about missing content, but alternative content.
I agree, but 1) there needs to be significant changes to how we make a game if we want to remove save scumming and 2) this is not for every game or every player. But yes, this is something that is missing from games broadly speaking.
Save scumming trades replayability for repetition. But using exploits can be fun too, even while cratering the long-term enjoyability of a game.
I agree. I don’t save scum. Not having consequences to your choices etc kills any tension in the game and hinders replay ability
You would have to figure out how to let any combat encounter has a fail state without really failing at all (like Soul Reaver).
Saving is important but when you play something like BG3 you should let the dice land where they will.
for me personally, i don't save scum my first time through a game that is choice driven, i want to for the first experience take it as it happens for me a big part of the experience is tackling this new unexplored thing and "seeing how i do" and how it plays out organically. then on following plays i go through and save scum to explore things i missed.
i should add, you should load for bugs and unintended shit (as in a misclick etc)
I’ve been playing Stalker Gamma and having to be at a lit campfire to save is pretty awesome I mean you can save sometimes before a big fight but usually it’s a lot of time between saves and shit can go wrong fast in the zone
6years later and this man is still promoting Prey, more than Bethesda did on launch😭
Very guilty of save scumming (especially in Wasteland 3), but i thankfully overcame most of the temptation!
When I was in the army my commander used to play Skyrim. He had a rule that he would only do one life and if he died he would restart. He never got more than six hours in the game play at the most. Some of us work too much and we need to have a safe mechanic. Not everyone wants to be a tryhard like you. So relax, and you’re wrong
Save scumming always ruins the fun of games to me. Most of my favorite games are those that don't allow save scumming like Hollow Knight, Subnautica (specially on hardcore mode), the souls series, so on and so forth. There is nothing more immersion breaking to me than save scumming.
Save scuming to me is a grey area. (Warning Wall O Text)
Baulders gates case I can see why people would want to do this method and not just for dialogue choices.
Like say if you had no saving but only at say fast travel points or inns or even shrines and had to commit to a choice throughout a game and there is a decision where one of your party members or you have to die but the option to save everyone is a high roll and none of your saves help at all and this is past act 2 so you are a few hours into the game. You fail the roll to save everyone and boss just kills your strongest character and takes all their stuff then you roll for initiative.
With no save before you are either A)forced to go along with the decision, B) restart from your last save thats is way outside the encounter and will take time to get back to doing all those fights and encounters again, or C) you would have to start the whole game over to the point of that one encounter to attempt the roll again. Now take that kind of result but litter that throughout the whole game and if people put that much time and effort just to get screwed over by RNG, people are going to uninstall the game.
Its like trying to play Zelda II but nothing saves at all and if you die you have to start that whole game all over again if you die to some arbitrary bs.
Also rather have people save scum than just make and download a mod that just makes every roll a natural 20. At least save scumming you are doing it to change up a tactic, changing up or adding to a roll differently by items, skills or changing character that can handle the conversation, or finding other solutions to solve a puzzle rather than just getting automatic 20s on every dialogue guaranteed. Console releases yeah people will save scum but considering this game is on PC, finding that kind of mod is easy that and cheat engine.
I also believe save scumming in single player is completely fine. Its the persons experience and its not effecting anyone else. But I would think it unacceptable in multiplayer at least against the will of other players playing your game unless something really bogus happens and everyone is fine with it.
I've been playing videogames for 20+ years and the best experience for me has been when I could savescum every time it was possible. The way we view videogames can be very different from player to player and I tend to perfect my playthrough and complete everything in a videogame, literary forge my own path. I don't like games that go over the board with "realism" or that force me to accept completed actions or that make me repeat content over and over again for progress. I do like Souls games, but because I don't like this mechanic, I could never place these games on my top favorite games. I hope this gives you some insight on why the community is divided on this subject, we play videogames for different reasons.
one like just thank for finally showing a proper hotbar UI ... ^^
may its time to explain in setting and in game there's option to customize slot on short cut keys hotbar
about spell , pro tips if on dialog you use for dice roll some attribute skill for your compagnins , don't forget if its was a concentration spell or not , for example going for a battle put a shield ( shadowhearts skill ) , talking to an npc ... then start a battle ..why i don't get the shield buff xD
I agree that saving before or after a big battle or after covering a lot of content so that if you die you do not have to regrind previous accomplishments but for the most part I do agree with if dice rolls go against you or a choice you make turns out to change the games direction you must live with that choice.
I will say being early on in my first playthrough and still learning the combat mechanics/tricks if I lose a character I plan on keeping in my party for the majority or entire game I will go and use a recent save and replay the battle rather than start over on a new playthrough to get the lost character back in my party.
Maybe that is still sort of against the correctness in gameplay and on future playthroughs after I have learned to properly use the parties strengths in battles I will be much more hesitant to resort to even those manipulations to the gameplay.
Well, i'm starting to regret the loading after "i lost" my eye (if you know what i mean))
Ok, you got me with that one. No more save/loading upon dice roll
I know exactly what you are talking about 😂
I have to admit, i failed miserably 🥲
The dialogue options at the end of Shar’s temple f*cked me over
Kingdom come requires item “schnapps” to save. So to save you have to either have schnapps or sleep in bed.
Ya I almost mentioned this I just chose ori instead but think it’s a great mechanic either way
Have more self control @FranklyGaming and stop pontificating from atop your elite box.
Most normal players dont do that tbh my friends and I tend to stick to the choices we make. I fewl most people only reload when 100% necessary
I only scum save to go back if the prompt wasn't exact and now I said something I didn't mean and I'm going to try that other kinda chaotic option I was going for to better translate who my character is, and then let the die lie.
If they didn’t want you to do it then they could have just made the game work like Dark Souls.
Or put restrictions on when you can save like “only during a long rest”.
BG3 is a great game, but it fails to capture the feeling of an actual DnD campaign because they let you quick save and quick load whenever you want instead of forcing you to deal with the consequences of your choices.
I’ve already decided when BG3 drops on PS5 in a few weeks, I’m not going to save scum for my entire playthrough. I’m going to “trust the dice” as they say. I want a real adventure.
Well I hope I can save the game when it's ready for my bed. Would hate to start a game from scratch every day because I can't stay awake or play for 30 hours or more.
Nier Automata had the best, the greatest end game save mechanic I ever played. Year's after and I still look back on that choice, that had real world consequences. The game was already a great game before that point to me, but at that point, a real moral dilemma, set it apart from the sheep in the herd. The way it went about carrying out the consequence of your choice was gut wrenching and adding salt to the wound, it was not gentle or quick and easy in the least, it dragged it out and made you watch helplessly.
There are games (like Pathfinder series or Xcom) which have Ironman modes with no save-scumming allowed. Pathfinder in particular is VERY VERY unforgiving when it comes its no save-scumming mode. (It is basically permadeath) Same goes for Hardcore servers on Diablo, and DDO. That kind of experience is VERY intense and memorable. I probably rolled hundreds of characters to max level in DDO over last 2 decades (god I am getting old) but my most memorable moments were always in hardcore server.
That being said, that experience is not everyone. Not everyone enjoys intense experiences, some people just play for relief, some want to be drawn in the narrative, and some people want the challenge and immersion that comes with consequence, and some people are just completionists and want to explore everything (and save scumming makes it much easier) As a kid I could easily sunk thousands of hours into gaming, as a 40 year old who played BG1 and 2 much more than he should have, I don't have the same time and energy anymore. Without saves, exploring different narrative options and outcomes would have required tens of playthroughs (for which I don't have the time) and I am but one person - with a particular preference. Different people get different people from games, just because saves take away from tension and meaning of the consequence, defining them as a problem is pretty problematic imho.
Larian's Divinity Series also had a Honour Mode (no save slots), same goes for Pathfinder series and the rest. In my opinion offering all these options to players with different priorities and preferences is a good thing. If you personally value the meaning and impact of consequence more than convenience (and exploring more of the narrative in one playthrough) you can always choose those kind of modes (I am sure it will come to bg3 at some point as well). However, I believe making games by default "hardcore" is not the way to go. My, oh my god moment with Vlaakith could've turned into a wtf moment (with over 40 hours going into the sink), and from a DM's perspective maybe It should've. All I am saying is that the severity of consequence should also be player's choice.
I already dont trust game developers to give us a working product, im not gonna trust them with when and how i save my game.
But the main difference i see is between rgp video games and rpg tabletop. And the biggest difference is flexibility. A good DM will craft a story around the players and adapt to their choices. A video game is so much rigid and has more of a A B or C choice so if i get something i dont like, i cant talk to my DM and explain my issues i have.
Implementing the "persistent dice rolls" (the same outcome after re-load) in the game is fairly easy but developers have chosen not to do it, so if they didn't bother why we as gamers should?
I think it's a subjective preference ultimately but we should have the choice and yea sometimes you feel annoyed by yourself by saving every 30 seconds and never pay the consequences of choices
I want to agree with you...and I do at least partially. I'm a VERY "safe" gamer. I replay games because I love the characters and they are a comfort to me and I would never pick up something like Dark Souls, etc. while I do love their lore and how they tell it. But...I actually love the weapon degradation in Breath of the Wild. I always find a weapon, class, etc. and stick to it. Never changing, never trying new things. Breath of the Wild forced me to and...I had fun! I loved trying the different weapons, planning how I'd go into this fight versus another one. I still fell into certain ways of doing things but it took me longer and I had to mix it up. Also one of the only games I can actually fire arrows in and hit what I target!
So I went into Baldur's Gate 3 and promised myself that I'd limit using my saves as crutches. I knew myself too well and I wanted to see where the roll of the die would take me.
And I had fun! Never was a fan of D and D but already I'm hooked on the lore and the world and genuinely want to know more! And while I've HATED some of dice rolls, I've been good.
You knew though, there was going to be but. I've not been playing long, my husband and I fighting for screen time, and I've only reached the hollow. I chose a druid character (I wanted to speak to animals and turn into them) and thought, "Druids, this is will be great!"
I'm now on my fifth time going through the SAME stupid dialogue! Two crashes and more that I don't want to get into have lead me to have to restart it multiple times...and still I find no way out. If I didn't have certain saves, which were done when I realized that I might have to change out certain party members if I didn't want them to hate me for my way of handling things...I don't know what I'd do.
So...I'd maybe like to see a game with limited saves and a way to stop you from save scumming, goodness knows it might help keep me from doing it quite so much...but no matter how good a game is, there are always issues and problems like above, and saves are sometimes the only thing keeping us from giving up on the whole thing. Not my first rodeo with this and won't be my last. And saves...then they become a saving grace.