Lets discuss game save design theories.

[sea]

Just a short observation: it's amazing how often the "different, but relatively equal choices and consequences" thing helps reduce save scumming. In games like The Witcher 2, sometimes things don't turn out the way you wanted or expected... even in the short term. Rather than reloading, the lack of obvious good and bad choices really helps to reduce the number of times I felt the need to reload. Sure, it happens, but I'm much more willing to accept the story the game's selling me as-is if it's actually worth hearing... "and then the hero chose the wrong dialogue option and everyone died" is not exactly compelling from a player's standpoint.

That doesn't mean jerk the player off, or provide no bad consequeces, mind you, it's just important to get away from obvious variables the player can manipulate, or will want to manipulate, as far as story goes. Outside of game mechanics, I'm almost entirely opposed to exposing the statistics, numbers etc. of things like plot points, or relationships with characters and factions, or karma, because it lets the player effectively game systems that really are not intended to be gamed. That fundamental contradiction of "organic relationships" and "cold, hard stats" is often at the heart of the perceived need to save scum.

 

[Surf Solar]

Just a short observation: it's amazing how often the "different, but relatively equal choices and consequences" thing helps reduce save scumming. In games like The Witcher 2, sometimes things don't turn out the way you wanted or expected... even in the short term. Rather than reloading, the lack of obvious good and bad choices really helps to reduce the number of times I felt the need to reload. Sure, it happens, but I'm much more willing to accept the story the game's selling me as-is if it's actually worth hearing... "and then the hero chose the wrong dialogue option and everyone died" is not exactly compelling from a player's standpoint.

That doesn't mean jerk the player off, or provide no bad consequeces, mind you, it's just important to get away from obvious variables the player can manipulate, or will want to manipulate, as far as story goes. Outside of game mechanics, I'm almost entirely opposed to exposing the statistics, numbers etc. of things like plot points, or relationships with characters and factions, or karma, because it lets the player effectively game systems that really are not intended to be gamed. That fundamental contradiction of "organic relationships" and "cold, hard stats" is often at the heart of the perceived need to save scum.

So in short, you like the wishi-washi "the player must not fail" philosophy modern games have? Ofcourse obvious fails need to be disguised a bit, but I don't see a reason why the player should not be punished for taking a stupid path. Making different shades of sucess while taking out the fails is one of the cancers one can find in modern RPG, it's incredibly boring and feels gamey.

 

[Skittles]

Surf, you play through Fallout and Fallout 2's 'failures' all the time, don't you? It doesn't give you a fat "QUEST FAILED" because the hostage in the hotel was killed by the raider, you just shoot him and move on. It's not the optimal outcome because you failed to talk him down, but it's not 'QUEST FAILED,' that gamiest of phrases, that prompts the player to reload.

 

[curry]

Surf, you play through Fallout and Fallout 2's 'failures' all the time, don't you? It doesn't give you a fat "QUEST FAILED" because the hostage in the hotel was killed by the raider, you just shoot him and move on. It's not the optimal outcome because you failed to talk him down, but it's not 'QUEST FAILED,' that gamiest of phrases, that prompts the player to reload.

This. And if your quest has multiple branches, doing the "wrong" thing should open up new options, i.e. bad choices can lead to interesting consequences.

 

[sea]

Surf, you play through Fallout and Fallout 2's 'failures' all the time, don't you? It doesn't give you a fat "QUEST FAILED" because the hostage in the hotel was killed by the raider, you just shoot him and move on. It's not the optimal outcome because you failed to talk him down, but it's not 'QUEST FAILED,' that gamiest of phrases, that prompts the player to reload.

This is what I was getting at. I'm not suggesting the player's hand be held or that it be impossible to screw up, but less-than-ideal outcomes that still feel earned and necessary are far preferable to "yeah, you suck, you really should try it again if you want that +4 longsword." Even better is when a "failure" opens up new quests, opportunities and rewards unique to it. The hostage died? How about a quest to tell the family about it, and an opportunity to comfort them? It helps take the blame directly off of the player and helps establish verisimilitude in the game world... as in real life, there are rarely "wrong" choices.

Another example of this, surprisingly, is Dragon Age 2 (I've been playing a little of it - it mostly sucks, but it does have a few good points). There are a lot of examples where saying the wrong thing will cause a person to attack (without BioWare's usual telegraphing) and considering there are long-term consequences to a lot of quests (mostly cosmetic), it means that those decisions (and mistakes) feel validated by the game. Did I want that negotiation to break down, and for all those people to be killed in the resulting bloodbath? No, but the game didn't pass judgement on me, as a player, and it didn't simply treat the outcome as a failure state, a red X in the quest journal. Life moves on even if shit happens, and making the player content with those outcomes is one step towards avoiding the save/reload cycle. I can certainly say I never felt the need or desire to reload the game in Dragon Age 2 after something bad happened, or The Witcher 2, or Fallout (unless I metagamed and had already decided on an outcome).

A lot of this does come down to presentation. As I said, replacing "QUEST FAILED, FUCKER" with "quest complete, but hey things didn't turn out great" is a subtle change, but an important one in validating the player. You'd be surprised how quickly that "you blew it, idiot" music gets the player to reload. Comparatively, holding additional rewards over the player's head when he/she doesn't get them is also encouragement to simply try again; long-term consequences are much better in that they help both improve the cohesiveness of the game world and reduce its "gameyness", as well as in that players aren't going to want to reload three hours after they made their choice. Other things, like the relationship sliders in BioWare games, really bother me because there's always a promise that "you could have handled that better if you'd taken the right party members and said the right things." Hiding those sorts of statistics, as I said above, makes the game world feel more organic and cuts down on that sort of metagaming.

 

[Surf Solar]

Ok, then I misunderstood you. Ofcourse "quest failed, you suck lol" isn't what I was suggesting and I agree with your elaboration then.

 

[NewFag]

Obtrusive and unwieldy save mechanics are unnecessary, and simply putting incentives to continue would work better. Negative reloading penalties aren't entirely feasible. For example, I'm still on my first run of ToEE, barely have time to play it, but I've reloaded hundreds of times. And not because of choice, can't autosave or quicksave or save during combat, but because of the glitches and crashes, I'm forced to save constantly and reload when it randomly crashes. Unless you have a game that isn't prone to crashes/glitches, or even protection against power outage, reload penalties ruin the enjoyment more than save-scumming would. Let it be known though that I agree with most of consensus here, even though I'm a self-confessed save-scummer. However, even if I get the best outcome possible, it's quite common for me to still reload. When it comes to gaming, I'm a completionist. I try to see as much as I can in one playthrough, then move on when I'm done. So usually it results in me save-scumming quite a bit to try all the options in one go. I enjoy games the most during the first playthrough, when everything is still fresh, so I almost never replay a game. Because of that I try and do everything in one go. Even Blood Bowl's save system didn't deter me from reloading when a critical player died or was irreversibly injured, I just wanted to complete the single player mode, try all the teams, and move on. Starting last year however, I've been unable to find the time to game anymore, and frankly it doesn't hold my attention as well as it did in my teenage years. I rather take the time to save-scum a completionist playthrough instead of re-running the game a second time. I really think in the end it's up to the player on how he wants to experience the game, if they really wanted to have no penalties, win everything, no amount of artificial barriers would be able to stop anyone determined to cheat the system. Better to reward players who play through the consequences.

 

[Damned Registrations]

There's not much of a difference though, between reward and punishment. I mean, if I give all the monsters 30 armor class, and give players a 20 point to hit bonus for not reloading for a while, it's no different than having the monsters have 10 armor class and giving players a 20 point penalty for reloading. It's not like the armor class of the enemies has some sort of 'right' value and I need to balance penalties and bonuses around that.

 

[NewFag]

Reloading after losing combat is a necessity if the battle is part of the main story and can only be played out with one end result (the player winning). If you make it so that the game could continue even after a combat loss, albeit differently, it piques the curiosity enough to deter reloading. I'm not asking in a change when the game is reloaded, I'm asking for more reasons to continue with the result.
If the general (abusive) reasons for reloading are as follows:
-Losing a fight
-Random drops
-Failed Skill Check
-Unwanted Dialogue choice

Then make it so that the player would like to continue even if those outcomes occur. The more grey the outcomes, the less likely a reload would occur, and would add to the depth of the world. When defeat has crippling consequences (or game over), or the reward is only available from that one combat scenario (with no other way to obtain a similar/equivalent reward) it's but human nature to redo it. It's when 1 option/outcome has a reward, and all the others are shit, that's when players are most likely to reload. A new approach would be that non-ideal outcomes could have long term benefits.

 

[Damned Registrations]

But then you can't make outcomes a point of tension. That's all fine and dandy if you want the player to be half asleep until an EPIC CUTSCENE comes along, but if the player is supposed to remember the battles he's foguht or the choices he's made foremost, then those things need to have very harsh consequences. I've only had a ball and chain attached to my leg follow me down the stairs and bludgeon me to death once in Nethack, but I'm sure as hell never going to forget that. It was awesome. I can only remember choices I've made and their consequences in games with save anywhere mechanics when I've done them over and over again. Why bother remembering such a thing or caring at all, when you can just reload.

 

[NewFag]

I definitely agree for hardcore or roguelike games, minimal saving would be optimal. Depends on context. If it's a serious business battle then definitely there should be a major consequence. If it's some along the road encounter, it's still possible to have tension and consequences without screwing over the player long-term.

 

[Twinkle]

There are a lot of examples where saying the wrong thing will cause a person to attack (without BioWare's usual telegraphing)

Bro, did you miss that *totally* unnoticeable red swords icon?

 

[DraQ]

Reloading after losing combat is a necessity if the battle is part of the main story and can only be played out with one end result (the player winning). If you make it so that the game could continue even after a combat loss, albeit differently, it piques the curiosity enough to deter reloading. I'm not asking in a change when the game is reloaded, I'm asking for more reasons to continue with the result.
If the general (abusive) reasons for reloading are as follows:
-Losing a fight
-Random drops
-Failed Skill Check
-Unwanted Dialogue choice

Then make it so that the player would like to continue even if those outcomes occur. The more grey the outcomes, the less likely a reload would occur, and would add to the depth of the world. When defeat has crippling consequences (or game over), or the reward is only available from that one combat scenario (with no other way to obtain a similar/equivalent reward) it's but human nature to redo it. It's when 1 option/outcome has a reward, and all the others are shit, that's when players are most likely to reload. A new approach would be that non-ideal outcomes could have long term benefits.

Grey outcomes are all fine and dandy, they make the game more interesting and they can reduce the amount of reloads, but they can only get you so far - if you get turned into minced meat, it's rather hard to continue.

There's not much of a difference though, between reward and punishment. I mean, if I give all the monsters 30 armor class, and give players a 20 point to hit bonus for not reloading for a while, it's no different than having the monsters have 10 armor class and giving players a 20 point penalty for reloading. It's not like the armor class of the enemies has some sort of 'right' value and I need to balance penalties and bonuses around that.

Well, I'd argue that there is. In most RPGs you will fight NPCs with same range of race, class and stats.

The "right" value is therefore the one that conserves symmetry between NPCs and the PC.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Eh, that still seems arbitrary to me. Putting aside enemies that aren't the same (giant spiders much? Dragons? Ahem.) there's still the matter of numbers and battle conditions. If can balance combat to be either difficulty or easy whether the enemy is an armless medget or an ancient dragon, symmetry between player and enemy stats isn't really necessary.

 

[DraQ]

Eh, that still seems arbitrary to me. Putting aside enemies that aren't the same (giant spiders much? Dragons? Ahem.) there's still the matter of numbers and battle conditions. If can balance combat to be either difficulty or easy whether the enemy is an armless medget or an ancient dragon, symmetry between player and enemy stats isn't really necessary.

I'd argue, that symmetry between the PC and an NPC with same race, class, level, stats and equipment is.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Then don't use such NPCs? I can't think of any advantage in making your enemies equally powerful as the player on an individual basis.

 

[DraQ]

Then don't use such NPCs? I can't think of any advantage in making your enemies equally powerful as the player on an individual basis.

And HOW can I predict in advance what race-stat-class-gear combination will player be using?
(more importantly: why should I even try?)

If the game has any sort of unified character and inventory system (and proper RPG should definitely have one) then possibility of having NPC with same parameters as the PC at some point is inevitable. If the game makes those same characters different, it's skewed in one way or another and cheats in one of the sides' favour.

 

[Damned Registrations]

And HOW can I predict in advance what race-stat-class-gear combination will player be using?
(more importantly: why should I even try?)

If the game has any sort of unified character and inventory system (and proper RPG should definitely have one) then possibility of having NPC with same parameters as the PC at some point is inevitable. If the game makes those same characters different, it's skewed in one way or another and cheats in one of the sides' favour.

You're operating on the assumption all the enemies will be like the player. Look at KotC. Of all the enemies, how many are actually things the player could copy? A tiny handful. A few NPCs here or there are races, classes, and using equipment the player can possibly have access to. Despite being a unified system, the vast majority of enemies are other races/species entirely. The only thing you'd need to do to make the last few enemies the player could copy unique, is give them a spell the player doesn't have access to, since that won't even drop on death (not that inventories dropped on death in KotC anyways).


This isn't even a useful point to argue that there is a 'right' value for enemy stats to sit at. Symmetrical with the player at the same level/equipment, fine. Why would the enemies be the same level as the player? Whats the difference between me pitting the player against level 1 enemies and giving them giant penalties for reloading, or level 10 enemies and giving them giant bonuses for not reloading? Nothing. Just numbers under the hood are different. Even if the enemy is restricted entirely to what the player has access to, they player doesn't have access to everything at the same time.

And even THAT is missing the original fucking point:

There's not much of a difference though, between reward and punishment. I mean, if I give all the monsters 30 armor class, and give players a 20 point to hit bonus for not reloading for a while, it's no different than having the monsters have 10 armor class and giving players a 20 point penalty for reloading. It's not like the armor class of the enemies has some sort of 'right' value and I need to balance penalties and bonuses around that.

Fine, you're an aspie and players and enemies are all cookie cutter clones with no differences at all. Instead of changing the enemy stats, I change their numbers, formation, and surprise rounds of encounters. Ta-da! Difficulty is exactly the same whether the player is getting a giant penalty or a giant bonus. Still no fucking reason why a penalty system is different from a reward system.

 

[Cassidy]

I don't agree with any kind of forced ironman or savegame restriction in a game where most content is hand-crafted and therefore predictable, leading to repetition and eventual frustration. On the same note the most idiotic thing ever made in nextgen when it comes to saving games was to make checkpoints more than features of racing games. That is a model of game saving that utterly beyond repair, stupid and encouraging of cheap constant mindless enemy spawning among other horrible game mechanics, and seeing it in screenshots is already an yellow flag and an almost "AVOID THIS GAME" for me. Back to the ironman, I don't like artificial difficulty, and thus I think that even in games where it fits it should be an optional feature rather than forced, enabled by default though.

Procedurally generated content: Ironman option is a must, but it should preferably be optional.
Handcrafted world and combat encounters: Unrestricted saving and loading of games, but with RNG seed always stored to block save scumming during battles in the case of turn-based games.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

There's a huge difference between reward and punishment, both in game design terms and in the psychology of the player. If you reward a player for not saving, they feel like they achieved something, and there's also an extra gameplay mechanic involved in the choice. It follows a risk / reward pattern: a player takes a risk and is rewarded with superior power. There is reason not to save, but sometimes saving is the optimum strategy because of the risk of dropping dead and losing a bunch of progress. When a player judges a decision correctly, they feel good and are having fun.

Punishment for reloading, however, is a horrible idea. The main reason a player would reload is because they are being beaten / have failed a task; but as a consequence they are then further weakened which does nothing except make it arbitrarily more difficult to pass the section they were already having trouble with. This is guaranteed to annoy the player horribly.

 

[Damned Registrations]

So you're saying the ministry of truth approach is needed? I suppose that's fine. I just find it sad that games need to be designed around the fact that people can't realize the fact that 10+10 and 30 - 10 are the same god damned number.

 

[Majestic47]

Punishment for reloading, however, is a horrible idea. The main reason a player would reload is because they are being beaten / have failed a task; but as a consequence they are then further weakened which does nothing except make it arbitrarily more difficult to pass the section they were already having trouble with. This is guaranteed to annoy the player horribly.

I always kept one philosophy: If you want to add a 'questionable' feature such as 'punishable' reloads, make it optional. These guys bought your game, they want to have fun. Fun can be measured differently between people, hence for those who wants challenge, let the enable the option. Those who just wants to play without the shackles or downsides, they can disable the option. I don't think anyone would hate this. At most it would create the 'elitist' gamer syndrome in scoreboards or such. But if it's a single player game, why cry so hard over it?

 

[DraQ]

It should have been over on the first page. How do you restrict save scumming and make the game still good? You can't and you're an idiot for bringing it up.

If you could wouldn't someone do it?

You're a fucking cretin.

By your logic everything everywhere must be perfect already, because if it could have been improved, it has been.

We so fucking need a "bow of shame" button, in addition to "brofist".

You're operating on the assumption all the enemies will be like the player.

No, I'm operating under assumption that having majority of races in the gameworld being dedicated cannon fodder for player to slaughter for lewtz and exps is just fucking dumb and leads to shitty, forgettable universes.

My assumption has been supported by 100% of cases I've encountered so far.

Unless you have some good, plot-related reasons for the PC to be unique little snowflake, like being undying dude with lots of scars, twice-undead, immortal, ex-vampiric wraith, or the last dragon-knight, the PC (or party) will be racially the same as good portion of the gameworld, will have the same range of statics, and will typically fight against other members of same races, while not fending off wildlife or fighting a relatively rare supernatural/mythical/alien opponent.

Why would the enemies be the same level as the player?

Because enemies come from full range of levels.

Fine, you're an aspie and players and enemies are all cookie cutter clones with no differences at all.

Of course not! Stats don't matter when defining a character in an RPG! At all! What does matter when defining a character in an RPG is how many landwhales it took to write a gay romance line for them.

Instead of changing the enemy stats, I change their numbers, formation, and surprise rounds of encounters. Ta-da! Difficulty is exactly the same whether the player is getting a giant penalty or a giant bonus. Still no fucking reason why a penalty system is different from a reward system.

So, if player reloads, he's rewarded with more challenging tactical gameplay, while if he doesn't he gets punished with dumbing down?


(Also, runaway suck is a big problem if reloads cause combat difficulty spikes that cause more reloads).

I don't agree with any kind of forced ironman or savegame restriction

That's why it shouldn't be a hard restriction, but soft penalty, and it shouldn't be placed on saving, but on reloading. Duh.

Back to the ironman, I don't like artificial difficulty

But isn't the ability to reload at will, effectively rolling back anything undesirable that happens to you in the game artificial ease?

Unrestricted saving and loading of games, but with RNG seed always stored to block save scumming during battles in the case of turn-based games.

If you remove the ability to retry by save scumming you reinforce the ability to scout by reloading.
It's an unwinnable situation - either you make the game deterministic and foreknowledge gained by reloading reliable, or you make it non-deterministic and susceptible to probability manipulation through save scumming. Either way scummer wins.

There's a huge difference between reward and punishment, both in game design terms and in the psychology of the player. If you reward a player for not saving, they feel like they achieved something, and there's also an extra gameplay mechanic involved in the choice. It follows a risk / reward pattern: a player takes a risk and is rewarded with superior power. There is reason not to save, but sometimes saving is the optimum strategy because of the risk of dropping dead and losing a bunch of progress. When a player judges a decision correctly, they feel good and are having fun.

Punishment for reloading, however, is a horrible idea.

You've got it ass backwards. Rewarding not saving is horribly retarded as it forces player to choose between forfeiting the reward and leaving himself open to (often technical) failure and losing hours of progress.

Also, the difference exists only if you have single special frame of reference (like for character abilities).

The main reason a player would reload is because they are being beaten / have failed a task; but as a consequence they are then further weakened which does nothing except make it arbitrarily more difficult to pass the section they were already having trouble with. This is guaranteed to annoy the player horribly.

No one says negative consequences should even affect combat or MQ-critical tasks. RPGs typically have a lot of optional, but highly desirable rewards attainable by players, like treasure, artifacts, and quest rewards. Those can be selectively disabled, starting with non-unique treasure (replacing randomized treasure with null on generation) when player doesn't reload too often, and ending with permanently (for that character) disabling unique optional content when player establishes himself as pathological savescummer.

The idea isn't to prevent saving, quite the contrary - player should save as often as he can.
The idea isn't even to prevent reloading, it's to ensure that player will only reload when it's absolutely necessary and capture all upsides of ironman (like player investment in survival at all cost), without any of its downsides.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Unless you have some good, plot-related reasons for the PC to be unique little snowflake, like being undying dude with lots of scars, twice-undead, immortal, ex-vampiric wraith, or the last dragon-knight, the PC (or party) will be racially the same as good portion of the gameworld, will have the same range of statics, and will typically fight against other members of same races, while not fending off wildlife or fighting a relatively rare supernatural/mythical/alien opponent.

There are plenty of good plot related reasons though. If it's not the player vs the world (which is about as shitty as plots can get) then it makes sense for there to be some specific enemy. It could be of the same race, but it could just as easily be other races. If your RPG is set on the backdrop of a major conflict between two races, then you have your excuse right there. If organizations come into play, you have the excuse of equipment being different as well (though this doesn't go quite as far in fantasy as it does in sci-fi, since things like ammo and maintenance aren't much of an issue for melee weapons) not to mention training. It makes perfect sense for the enemy to have access to races, classes, and equipment the player does not and never will. They're in conflict after all, they're not going to share everything with the local merchant.

Because enemies come from full range of levels.

Again, why? I could just as easily build an entire RPG on a plot of a badass war veteran taking out tons of lesser foes and struggling against odds and time constraints, as I could make a game about someone just learning how to fight getting by against much more skilled opponents by superior tactics, equipment, or racial prowess.

So, if player reloads, he's rewarded with more challenging tactical gameplay, while if he doesn't he gets punished with dumbing down?


(Also, runaway suck is a big problem if reloads cause combat difficulty spikes that cause more reloads).

See, those are both things I'm actually worried about. This is why I'd much prefer to have no hard saves at all, aside from having to pull weird gimmicky crap to keep reloading from fucking the balance, there's the issue the hardcore mode has anyways- you still have to nail the game balance. If you're going to put in the effort to make the balance so good combat only feels right when it isn't reloaded on, having reloads is just a pointless gesture. But people seem so incredibly adverse to it, it seems like the pointless gesture is necessary to make them give it a try.

The idea isn't to prevent saving, quite the contrary - player should save as often as he can.
The idea isn't even to prevent reloading, it's to ensure that player will only reload when it's absolutely necessary and capture all upsides of ironman (like player investment in survival at all cost), without any of its downsides.

Hmmm, this makes me wonder, given that that is the goal, perhaps the best system is something like you suggested (savescumming screwing over incidental nice stuff) except making that fact completely transparent to the player, to maximize their incentive to not reload. You could even tie it into the actual game world, as JRPGs often do with saving anyways, and associate the act of reloading a prior timeline with some sort of affront to the powers that be, and making it clear that if you cross the line (and where that line is) they'll start taking things from you or witholding gifts. Reminds me of BoF5 in two ways; aside from it's limited save system (You took a score penalty at the end of the game for saving, and required tokens to make a hard save, though that part could be circumvented somewhat) but also in that the player had to manage a resource that was finite over the course of the game, and could enver be restored. Making the player's ability to reload the game such a resource would be very interesting.

 

[DraQ]

Unless you have some good, plot-related reasons for the PC to be unique little snowflake, like being undying dude with lots of scars, twice-undead, immortal, ex-vampiric wraith, or the last dragon-knight, the PC (or party) will be racially the same as good portion of the gameworld, will have the same range of statics, and will typically fight against other members of same races, while not fending off wildlife or fighting a relatively rare supernatural/mythical/alien opponent.

There are plenty of good plot related reasons though. If it's not the player vs the world (which is about as shitty as plots can get) then it makes sense for there to be some specific enemy. It could be of the same race, but it could just as easily be other races. If your RPG is set on the backdrop of a major conflict between two races, then you have your excuse right there. If organizations come into play, you have the excuse of equipment being different as well (though this doesn't go quite as far in fantasy as it does in sci-fi, since things like ammo and maintenance aren't much of an issue for melee weapons) not to mention training. It makes perfect sense for the enemy to have access to races, classes, and equipment the player does not and never will. They're in conflict after all, they're not going to share everything with the local merchant.

Equipment tends to be lootable. Specific enemy and only that specific enemy, makes for an extremely boring and artificial game.

Again, why? I could just as easily build an entire RPG on a plot of a badass war veteran taking out tons of lesser foes and struggling against odds and time constraints, as I could make a game about someone just learning how to fight getting by against much more skilled opponents by superior tactics, equipment, or racial prowess.

Because a reasonably large world will have a reasonably natural distribution of characters with various level of experience. Also, leveling mechanics where high level character with a butter knife wins about a dozen of level one losers in power armours and armed with gatling cannons is just wrong.

See, those are both things I'm actually worried about. This is why I'd much prefer to have no hard saves at all, aside from having to pull weird gimmicky crap to keep reloading from fucking the balance, there's the issue the hardcore mode has anyways- you still have to nail the game balance. If you're going to put in the effort to make the balance so good combat only feels right when it isn't reloaded on, having reloads is just a pointless gesture. But people seem so incredibly adverse to it, it seems like the pointless gesture is necessary to make them give it a try.

The problem is that this pointless gesture will turn the reasonably challenging game into an easymode romp.

Hardcore mode, OTOH is all fun and dandy until you die 12h in and have to restart.

Hmmm, this makes me wonder, given that that is the goal, perhaps the best system is something like you suggested (savescumming screwing over incidental nice stuff) except making that fact completely transparent to the player, to maximize their incentive to not reload. You could even tie it into the actual game world, as JRPGs often do with saving anyways, and associate the act of reloading a prior timeline with some sort of affront to the powers that be, and making it clear that if you cross the line (and where that line is) they'll start taking things from you or witholding gifts. Reminds me of BoF5 in two ways; aside from it's limited save system (You took a score penalty at the end of the game for saving, and required tokens to make a hard save, though that part could be circumvented somewhat) but also in that the player had to manage a resource that was finite over the course of the game, and could enver be restored. Making the player's ability to reload the game such a resource would be very interesting.

Well, I'd generally just stick with fortune always taking what's rightfully her. :p

My logic is that seeking phat lewt and solving quests is an important part of the gameplay, while phat lewt and quest rewards are important rewards. Those are unambiguously desirable, while also highly optional and due to redundancy it would take a lot of disabled content to actually impact completability.

Saving shouldn't be touched because player shouldn't be a slave to the game and shouldn't expose himself to a risk of technical failure, but reloading is a valid target.