Question: Is "save scumming" less common among console gamers?

[Infinitron]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad?

OFF TOPIC, reported 17 times

I didn't say it was bad, but it is something that has implications to the way developers design games nowadays. For example, if console gamers load saved games less, then games are probably being designed to be less difficult to accomodate that habit.

 

[J_C]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad?

OFF TOPIC, reported 17 times

I didn't say it was bad, but it is something that has implications to the way developers design games nowadays. IE, if console gamers load saved games less, than games are probably being designed to be less difficult to accomodate that habit.

I know you didn't say that, I just asked it. I didn't want to open a separate topic for it.

 

[DraQ]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad? If I want to save every 10 seconds, and reload if something goes wrong, let me do it. It is my game, I want to do whatever want with it.

Saving anywhere you please isn't bad. It's awesome.

The fact that failure and mindless trial and error carry no penalty whatsoever is the bad part as it kills the tension even if you don't scum on purpose and even try to avoid it as much as possible.
Because in the end you still know that there is a safety net.

 

[DefJam101]

quicksave is the devil

 

[AngryEddy]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad? If I want to save every 10 seconds, and reload if something goes wrong, let me do it. It is my game, I want to do whatever want with it.

Saving anywhere you please isn't bad. It's awesome.

This isn't the argument people for savestating should have, we should have a discussion of: should we have to play the same segment x times, when each time takes X minutes, and it artificially inflates the game depending on the players ability to absorb patterns or not and is artificial inflation of time invested acceptable? For example, I played some of the Contras on NES and SNES and savestated right when boss fights started, does it make me a bad person to be able to absorb the pattern of the bosses faster than the guy who had to play through the levels every time he failed against the bosses?

I personally think not, if you have the ability to save state, I think you should. I don't think you should savestate during a boss fight to secure healthbars, but that's just me.

 

[DraQ]

Ideally?

Ideally you should simply get tased in the sack on reload.

 

[Declinator]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad? If I want to save every 10 seconds, and reload if something goes wrong, let me do it. It is my game, I want to do whatever want with it.

Saving anywhere you please isn't bad. It's awesome.

The fact that failure and mindless trial and error carry no penalty whatsoever is the bad part as it kills the tension even if you don't scum on purpose and even try to avoid it as much as possible.
Because in the end you still know that there is a safety net.

I think the extreme comparison of save scumming and tension-inducing effect of no saving can actually be found in racing games. If you crash in Forza 4 you can just rewind to an earlier position. No penalties, not even loading times as it instantly starts rewinding. You do get a bit less money from winning with rewinding enabled but it's neglibile.

On the other hand GT5 originally didn't even allow exiting a race and coming back to it (IIRC), which understandably made some 4-hour (or more) races quite tense affairs and Forza 4 races, on the other hand, often quite dull.

I guess the rewind is not quite a save game but in many ways it is the ultimate save scumming tool and would be a devastating thing in shooters.

Unfortunately, neither game offered monetarily serious consequences for crashing as something like NFS 5: Porsche Unleashed did but that is another matter altogether.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Back when I still had a 360 it kept me from abusing save systems because of the long load times. I'd shrug and live with it.

 

[Ebonsword]

Yes, saving and loading is horribly slow on consoles. God, Dragon's Dogma takes like a minute to save, and even more to load...

Interesting you mention Dragon's Dogma because people savescum the hell out of that game trying to get the best loot from chests in the Everfall.

 

[Carrion]

This isn't the argument people for savestating should have, we should have a discussion of: should we have to play the same segment x times, when each time takes X minutes, and it artificially inflates the game depending on the players ability to absorb patterns or not and is artificial inflation of time invested acceptable? For example, I played some of the Contras on NES and SNES and savestated right when boss fights started, does it make me a bad person to be able to absorb the pattern of the bosses faster than the guy who had to play through the levels every time he failed against the bosses?

Contra is a linear game with very little resource management, so having to replay the same part over and over again could be seen as a waste of time when the game offers no real long-term challenge. As a counter-example, take your average RPG and see what happens when you can save and load anywhere: you end up with a billion health potions that you'll never actually have to use. Another example could be the early Rainbow Six games: You get a bunch of nonlinear levels that you have to complete on one go. Before starting a level you get to choose your team and gear and go through an elaborate planning stage which can be about as important as the actual gameplay. If you fail a mission, you get thrown back to the drawing board, which forces you to re-evaluate your strategy and tactics and make appropriate adjustments before attempting the mission again. If you added free saving and loading, you could just replay any part of the level ad nauseam until you managed to headshot every enemy in sight, which would effectively eliminate the importance of tactics in the first place.

 

[DraQ]

^ And that's without any conscious scumming.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Even in linear games like Contra it has an effect: saving right before a big fight completely changes the way you play, you have zero investment in it because if you die, you'll get another try almost immediately. It's like playing an arcade game on MAME with your pinky on the "Add Credit" key.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Oh why don't you all fuck off everyone one of you fuckers have save scummed at some point.

Don't kid yourselves.

 

[Cassidy]

I try to never save during combat or after making one choice of many possible ones, only in moments of "peace", but this discussion is sort of inane.

As for consoles, that is a moot point because most nextgen popamole console games are so fucking easy and simplistic in the first place, with many actually designed in a way that will ensure a retard can beat it without ever having to reload a saved game at the "normal" difficulty, that such comparison would be unfair. Certain classical PC games were actually designed with the ability to save being considered when a decision was reached how hard certain segments in them would be.

When I was 8 and owned a Genesis I was more hardcore than any mouthbreathing Doritos eater who thinks he is "hardcore" for playing linear popamole with checkpoints because all games I played at that time were completely devoid of a save feature. The more generous had lives and continues inherited from arcade gameplay, and that is it.

 

[DraQ]

Oh why don't you all fuck off everyone one of you fuckers have save scummed at some point.

Good. I'd hate to talk stuff I don't know anything about.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Oh why don't you all fuck off everyone one of you fuckers have save scummed at some point.

Good. I'd hate to talk stuff I don't know anything about.

Bullshit.

 

[dunno lah]

The Souls games sure taught me how to savescum less.

 

[sea]

Save-scumming is far less common among console gamers, but I do think many still do it in more key situations rather than as a matter of course. For instance, any story-driven game with multiple endings, choices that impact the plot, etc. will inevitably be save-scummed so people can get the ideal outcomes they want.

Personally I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it, and typically it's not very fun either. I also think certain games can be designed in ways to reduce the temptation to save-scum - where success is not instant, for example, but a result of multiple good decisions in gameplay, so long as you come out the other side victorious, you're probably not going to feel tempted to abuse the system as much.

 

[Crooked Bee]

If we take console games as a whole, they've generally been a lot better at resource attrition (which is the entire point of avoiding save-scumming) than western RPGs in the past decade or so. In fact, they've generally stayed true to the 80s CRPGs in that regard.

If we take just multi-platform releases like Skyrim, then I dunno; probably about the same.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Save-scumming is far less common among console gamers,

Modern day? Sure.

Older times? Hey felipepepe, us console dudes never save scummed for rare item drops or other neurotic shit in jRPGs! King Goo Sword was just a dream!

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[felipepepe]

Older times? Hey felipepepe, us console dudes never save scummed for rare item drops or other neurotic shit in jRPGs! King Goo Sword was just a dream!

King Goo Sword, stealing stuff in FFT, breeding chocobos... I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[SCO]

savestates or savestate rewind are actually the ultimate savescumming so pc is even bringing decline to consoles

 

[Damned Registrations]

I have a better question. Why is save scumming bad? If I want to save every 10 seconds, and reload if something goes wrong, let me do it. It is my game, I want to do whatever want with it. And let me tell you, I'd rather save and reload every minute, than replay 10 minutes of the game just becaue the last checkpoint was far back.

Same reason it would be retarded to include a debug menu with options like "set gold to infinity", name it something like 'bonus menu' and include it in the tutorial. Because when you include saving as a major aspect of the game, players assume that saving and reloading is how it is meant to be played, and failing a pickpocket attempt, ever, is simply a sign you should reload. Then if it's possible to pickpocket successfully without reloading (with 50 points allocated), morons complain about how pickpocketing is too effective because they only put 1 point in it and reloaded until it worked every time, without mentioning the fact that they reloaded because hey, that's NORMAL right?

 

[DraQ]

Save-scumming is far less common among console gamers, but I do think many still do it in more key situations rather than as a matter of course. For instance, any story-driven game with multiple endings, choices that impact the plot, etc. will inevitably be save-scummed so people can get the ideal outcomes they want.

Personally I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it, and typically it's not very fun either. I also think certain games can be designed in ways to reduce the temptation to save-scum - where success is not instant, for example, but a result of multiple good decisions in gameplay, so long as you come out the other side victorious, you're probably not going to feel tempted to abuse the system as much.

True, but you'd need a system without randomness, hidden information and effectively without marigin of error to fully accomplish that.

Otherwise even a game with reduced scummability will be scummed.

Bullshit.

r00fles!

Fixed.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Fixed.

Blah, you PC elites would never understand.