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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
The only valid reason for me to save scum is to briefly give in to the intrusive thoughts, then to give myself whiplash from having to resume being a not-institutionally-insane protagonist in the remainder of my gameplay.
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
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.
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.
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.
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;)
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.
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)
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.
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.
I find your point contradictory somewhat. You preach you like choices but you want to take away choices of other people (that is using saves). Why would it be a detriment what other people decide for themselves? In my eyes "I could've taken the easy way and savescummed" is not much else than "I could've taken the easy way and not fight those guards" or "I know a way this situation would've been easier but my character wouldn't do that" - the option for an alternative rewards your choice instead of taking away from it. Everyone can always decide not to use savegames, there are multiple games with "Ironman"-difficulties that enforce that, if you feel like your decision to abide by these rules is not good enough - but that is simply adding an additional option (which is nearly always good) not removing the choice which experience you want which is in my opinion just as bad as removing other in-game-choices. The analogy with actual table-top-playing fails in my opinion as well. In actual table-top you always have a man behind the screen that can (and hopefully will) adapt to all things that happen. Every failure can be equally fun as a triumph as the DM can handle and expand on all possible failure-states that could ever exist. That scale is simply impossible in let's say premade media which cannot adopt to all states. The NPCs cannot reliably banter over your supposed dog-hatred and there is no way an additional quest and questline to construct a dog-shelter that is equally rewarding is possible - especially for all possible player-intentions. Only forcing a reload on extreme gamestates (Game Over) and disabling it otherwise just leads to people needing to force a Game Over everytime they are unhappy with the outcome. For example if Fire Emblem would force me to complete a map even if I lost valuable units I do not want to play without I would just suicide my main character everytime the game refuses to let me load. The only detriment I see in developing options like difficulty-sliders or saveoptions is development time, the same detriment I see in developing all other choices in the game. Coding multiple interesting failure states takes time as does implementing interesting difficulty-options. The big example of dark souls would, in my opinion, not lose its charm when there would be difficulty-options unless that means some other aspect of the game loses the development-time it needed. People playing the game more easier than you does not devalue your experience.
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 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.
No ....... he's trying to make you have a better experience in games but you are like a baby having a temper tantrum and punting your toys out of the pram. But to stay in this analogy: When we were kids our mothers would sometimes force us to taste something new that we hadn't tasted before because she knew we might like it once we tasted it. This is what he is arguing here: that no-saves can lead to a better experience that you didn't know you wanted before you tried it.
@@jepsen1977 So, like I said. Gatekeeping. A better, less "play my way", solution is to just add a Hardcore/Ironman difficulty with no saves. You can't make a 15 minute video bitching about a fair solution though, so.
Take BG3 : the game is often blatantly unfair. You just walk down the road, minding your own business, you trigger a fight and before you can do anything, one of your characters is dead, two are silenced and so you need to play three turns with just your squishy. Completely hopeless. So that is game over, not about gitting gud, sometimes a mob just crits for over 100 damage on your team or 2 of your chars get knocked into a chasm. BUT. It is often very funny. I just know this will upset some people who will insist that this never happens to them because they are just that smart. They must play a SPECIAL version of the game, tailored for their awesome intellect, where they can outsmart fate. But in the real world mad stuff happens as emergent behavior from the engine and saving a lot mitigates the frustration and allows laughing about it. Larian intended for quicksaving often and it made the game easier to design and far more interesting.
I only rely on inspiration. If i need a 20 and decide to commit rerolling up to 4 times i always stick with that decision no matter what. Even if someone important dies or leaves or a more important decision comes up and i wasted all inspiration points before. But i do savescum a playthrough ending combat failure.
Ya I get this for sure I address it in the video, it’s not about taking away player choices, it’s more about a different type of game that can be great too
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.
I have a few issues with your statements. You mention the ability to save in games like Baldur's Gate 3 and how it can become a crutch for players, leading to save scumming. I tend to agree with this viewpoint to some extent. However, you then draw comparisons between Baldur's Gate 3, Dungeons and Dragons, and Souls-like games, highlighting the absence of save options in the latter two. While I understand your perspective, I'd like to address some nuances in your argument. You suggest that if a player fails and dies in a game like Baldur's Gate 3, they should have to restart from the beginning. This particular aspect, I must disagree with, as it doesn't align with the mechanics of Souls-like games or most D&D sessions. In Souls-like games, dying leads you back to a spawn point, with the primary consequence being the loss of in-game currency. While you do need to confront the repercussions of your mistakes, you are granted the opportunity to repeatedly face the same challenges until you overcome them. The main penalties in these games are the potential omission or bypassing of certain content. Turning to Dungeons and Dragons, it's true that players must abide by their actions and cannot retry an encounter. However, in the event of character death, the game doesn't usually end. Instead, players often create new characters to carry on, and many Dungeon Masters encourage the campaign to continue despite such setbacks. Some published modules by Wizards of the Coast even guide DMs to maintain the narrative flow regardless of character fatalities, sometimes even incorporating multiple player deaths into the story. Hence, comparing Baldur's Gate 3's save system directly to these systems might not be entirely accurate. A more apt comparison could be made with games like Xcom 2's Ironman mode. However, while sharing some gameplay similarities, it presents a distinct style of play. It embodies the concept of facing seemingly insurmountable odds and persisting in the face of countless losses. Even then, this mode is still just an option that players most opt in to. I agree that save scumming can undermine the gaming experience, and it's likely that Larian Studios will introduce a mode that removes this, akin to what they did in Divinity Original Sin 2. However, it's important to consider that the removal of save scumming, especially in RPGs, might not be universally fitting. Games should ideally provide players with the flexibility to choose their preferred approach, catering to both those who relish the challenge of living with their choices and those who seek a more forgiving experience.
“What’s the point of giving you a choice?” Uh letting you choose? If I want to be the big intimidating orc but mommy d20 keeps saying no then I’m not making the choice to play the intimidating orc am I? The game is forcing me to play a non-intimidating orc. That’s not role playing, that’s not player agency. Allowing you to fail is one thing, role playing is another, and often the 2 don’t jive well. One of the top complaints of dnd is “I’m not actually playing the game, the dk and dice are” well yeah that’s exactly right. So when I’m in a SINGLE PLAYER game, I’m not gonna let a dk or a die tell me I can’t play the way I want too.
All I am saying is the magic of DND is lost in games with saves, because not being able to do "take backs" is itself amazing. Having pure determinism can be great too, but some games should get rid of it for another type of roleplaying experience that is even better in my opinion. Ask people that play tabletop, it can be amazing and would be in games too
@@FranklyGaming that works in dnd, but not in a video game where you don’t have a DM to smooth things over or improvise a solution to a plot hole. In a video game it doesn’t work anywhere near as well if at all, all choices are hard, there’s no dm to smooth anything over or to read the faces of the players to see if they are having a bad time and decide to change things up. It works in table top absolutely, but not in video games, at least not yet
@@FranklyGaming don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy this game. However I’m not a blind fanboy and I truely believe honestly giving constructive criticism can only lead to a more improved product in the future. If there are major issues, but everyone is only saying “it’s the best rpg to ever exist” well it kinda looks like there’s no issues to fix, or at a minimum be taken seriously. I’ve beaten bg3 4 times now, because as I said I do enjoy it, but that’s also given me a look into everything and I’m not going to ignore that because I like dnd
@@ToHonorKnowledge oh ya definitely agree there the failure states have to be great, BG3 does it well or Disco Elysium for a great example, games should be designed like that sometimes I think
That shit is needed to get platinum trophies, I'm not about to play the game 5 times to get different endings. I don't use it cuz of choices are bad unless it effects that though, but it's good it's there.
Save scumming let's me play the game the way I want, sorry not sorry. I think having the option in the game is necessary. Not everyome wants to gamble with something they are doing for enjoyment, and many people don't have the time to replay a game in an effort to get a better result. Personally, I want the results I want and if save scumming is how I get it than so be it. Taking away the option is ridiculous, bc its not like the option being there forces anyone to do it.
Ya I totally get this side and talk about it in the video, it’s more there is something great about not allowing it too, I think both should exist for sure
Or maybe I save before a conversation so I can get all the options without needing to replay the game a billion times to get to see them all. Then there are lore channels that requires to view all of the dialogue options quickly so they can put out a video on time. You are a content creator after all and you know how much time it takes to put out a single video. As for a normal player I enjoy saving because game crashes for whatever reason. Let me give you a good example, god eaters three, I was in-between auto saves and my game crashed I lost everything. Or fallout 3 or 4, I went two hours without saving and my game crashed. Cyberpunk 2 hours lost due to a sudden power outage (drink driver took himself out and a power line). So I started saving a lot, just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean everyone does.
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.
I 100% disagree. I am tired of not being able to play games the way I want to play them. You said you reloaded after scratch. That's you, you made that choice. I would have just remembered it could happen for the next playthrough. Some people don't like being unsure, it's not fun for them. Save scumming isn't ruining games at all. The people who want to use it can and they enjoy their game. Those of us that don't, don't and we enjoy our game. It's another option for HOW to play the game. More options on how the player plays is always a good thing in my book. great video with good insights though!
Ya I totally get this side I think lots of games should give players the option too. It forcing it could lead to some great stuff as well. Thanks for watching!
I do feel like the ability to choose different difficulty settings does ameliorate some of the downsides that you talk about here. And by this I mean games that actually play differently at higher difficulties, not just enemies that become bigger damage sponges, etc. When you've got to be at a certain level of quick reaction time or long form strategy to pass a particular part of a game, saves aren't going to help you all that much.
While I agree that saving is a feature overused by players, I do mostly not agree about games forcing you do play with no saves. Consider that, if a game like BG3 only had an ironman mode, if you're killed in Act 3 you played 100+ hours and you'd have to play another 100 hours to see the end of the game. This is fine if it's self-imposed, but otherwise not acceptable. I think in RPGs, it should be left to the player to act as their characters and immerse themselves in the game world and not, say, flippantly provoke Vlaakith just to see what happens because you have a fallback. Because your character doesn't have one. So, if "success" and "fail" simply are two ways to continue the story and both are interesting (as in Disco Elysium), then it's fine to tell people to live with the consequences, but what if "fail" means the end of the story? And there's also this: I hate to repeat things because it breaks the flow of the story. This means I do not, as a rule, save scum in decisions and would be fine if there weren't any saves close to this event, but if I die in combat and have to repeat a full hour of gameplay just to get to the same point, that breaks up my immersion even more. In the end, I think games that tell stories should be designed in a way that makes an ironman mode feasible, and implement one. But it should still be left to the player to actually use it. If a game like BG3 had only an ironman mode, I wouldn't play it in ironman mode. I would, just like the Souls-like games you mentioned, not play it at all.
Yeah this hot take is just that. a hot take. Ppl don't play video games to give up control. They play video games to have fun. If something happens they don't like then damn Skippy they're gunna reload a save. Get out of here. If there is the rare person who wants a grueling game with zero do overs or forgiveness then fine. They can choose not save often. But the vast majority of the rest of will continue to save and save frequently. Get out of here.
I'm 34 years old. I use cheats to get all the best items in Fallout and Skyrim before I start a new playthough because I've played the game "for real" 10 years ago. Nothing wrong with having fun my way. And save scumming is awesome too. I dont want to feel like Im at work when im gaming.
I've only saved scummed once in my playtrough so far and it was because of scratch 😂 I was playing with a friend and when i discovered the doggo i was going on the right path with him but since i didnt had the spell to talk to animals and he did, he wanted to interact with him. When he did, he was talking to scratch with an attitude so scratch got mad at us and became hostile. I immediately saved scummed and didnt let my friend talk to scratch ever again 😂
Hey, I have the youtube dislike extension, and I see this concerning ratio. Don't worry about it though, man. The dislike ratio has nothing to do with the quality of the video. This is a really great video, and I can tell you've poured plenty of work into it. Thanks for doing what you do.
It depends on why you're playing the game. I no longer play games for the game experience or game play loop. Thats not interesting to me, and I don't derive a stronger sense of accomplishment when the game is hard. I'm in it for the narrative. The story. When I complete a good game I want (and have, if I end up thinking it was good) the same sense of satisfaction that I do when I finish a great book. Reading a book is an interactive experience. You aren’t being told, read to , or watching the story (nothing wrong with those methods either, but you're more of an observer). You're in it. Living it with the characters as it happens. You have to turn the page. Just like you have to progress the story in a video game. If the writing is strong enough, like in a Baldur's Gate 3 or Mass Effect or Witcher 3, you actually get to craft the narrative to a degree. That's my favorite. Not a complete choose your own adventure, but a very well written story where your actions are part of the tale. That's why I love RPGs and great video game stories. This even applies to great linear stories like The Last of Us I and II. Even though it's a set story, you are still progressing it, living it, just like reading a great book. All this being the case, the ability to save and reload is something I value. It's sometimes useful and necessary. Taking it away adds nothing, because I can ignore it IF I choose too.
How many times have you done the Nautaloid, it can get boring to do the same stuff over and over again, just because RNGesus is angry at you! Roguelikes can be fun, but frustrating!
Maybe, maybe not, its a personal choice. I sometimes like to play in iron man mode, sometimes I just save scum to basically play entire game at once, instead of few times, sometimes I go back hours, still having fun. Depends on a game pretty heavily. My main problem with RPG that often choices doesnt really work... sometimes to see interesting stuff you need to choose something just dumb, same issue with losing companions in many games, often to lose them you need to do something unbelievably stupid, Xcom on the other hand does it right and you can lose a soldier even w\o doing something wrong, at least not overtly wrong... like tactical mistake... I mean who the hell is going to attack Karlach for example, evil play doesnt mean killing everyone you meet. Beth games are the worst... they just dont allow you to make a choice, sure sometimes god mode for NPC are a necessary thing, but they went far beyond necessary.
Nah. It'd be one thing if game UX and controls were perfect, but I'm not rolling with a misclick or a misleading dialogue option. Also some game mechanics are just bullshit. Games need to embrace it and make encounters worth repeating until you improve enough to beat them. Celeste does this perfectly. It's crazy difficult not because it makes you repeat a whole level but because the individual puzzles and platform screens are difficult, and repeating that over and over is a part of how you improve. It's a part of the experience.
Don't hate the player. Hate the game. If you can save I am going to use it, I just can't help myself. And with how glitchy auto saves are, I don't trust it. Got stuck in a glitch on Fallout 4 one time and autosaves didn't go back far enough that I had to reset the entire game. Now games like Elden Ring did it well where you can't save scum so I agree failures should be impactful which a game like Signalis did very well that it would actually influence which ending you got in the game. If you didn't save scum where you actually took lots of damage, killed corrupted, and kept carrying on you would get the canon ending. Taking little to no damage is unrealistic on a first run so it knows you save scummed and would give you a pretty unsatisfying ending. Wish more games did this. Either take it away or punish you for doing so.
BG3 is basically unplayable without save scumming. Not just because of the myriad of bugs still left in the game after 3 years of early access, but because lots of things won't make sense story-/roleplaywise without it. Keeping things vague to avoid spoilers: Your goody-two-shoes adventurers want to reenter the bad guy's lair after beating him, because a missing person is probably still in there? Too bad! The entrance isn't interactable anymore, even though everything looks the same and no reason is given whatsoever (a tiny bit of dialogue about the lair collapsing or something would have been enough explanation) They want to complete that major sidequest in order to leave a hugely positive impact on the world? Too bad, there's no time... Unless you haven't started said quest yet ofcourseofcourseofcourse Even though I love this game, I fail to understand how it became GOTY without even the slightest semblance of controversy
I spent weeks applying to jobs to work for so I could buy a game & play it in my spare time, I'll play it the way I want to. If the choice goes wrong, is misleading, or just a choice I want to make to see what happens I will not replay the entire game just to correct the mistake. If YOU don't want to save just don't. Why complain about other people playing the game they worked for the way they want to? Especially when they don't affect your game? Just sounds like holier than thou bs
I don't know about it being relaxable. More weird buggy bullshit happens now in games than ever. BG3 is amazing but it is janky af. I think I'd rephrase the thesis of the vid. Saving isn't bad, excessive loading is.
Pillars of Eternity 2 had ironman mode. Only 1 save, you die - game over. I tried it, but died midgame in bad combat situation - horrific stuff, never touched the game since. Personally, I roll with a die and story, but I won't say someone else how to play the game or even limit/criticize the game for not limiting save function in order to prevent save scumming. I don't think it's game's issue, it is personal and self-control issue first and foremost. Looks like with "scratch situation" is just a self-control situation. I think Ironman option, which you can't change after you started new game would do for you personally, but I don't think it's on the game to "force" stopping save scumming. I hope they'll add this option for you and similar minded people to enjoy. Upd: Same with respec, purists argued that it's a bad feature because it takes a meaning from choosing class and progression.
You asked, i would say you are wrong, you cant know what exactly your character will say because tone is a thing, you only get to know after you pick it.
Save scumming reduces (eliminates?) the stakes, and thus inevitably hurts the experience. On the other hand, forcing a player to stick to certain choices may prove to be detrimental to their enjoyment and might lead to quitting the game. I've long thought of a solution, and this is what I've come up with: 1) autosave only 2) build the game in a way that consequences are never imminent. A player only get to face them several hours after the choice was made. 3) build a mechanism that rewards dedicated players that engage with the world, lore, and the characters. For instance, players may accumulate reputation. Past a certain threshold, they may "teleport" back to the latest crossroad and make a different choice. 4) the reputation points, however, must be finite. Meaning, in every act, there might be only one or two opportunities to teleport back (so the player can't abuse the system). I feel like this is a good compromise between the pure yet rigid experience of role-playing and allowing some flexibility. I'd like to know what other people think of this idea, so feel free to chime in!
Really like most of these ideas definitely agree with autosave being the only option and frequent, also designing so most choices really are felt later makes it so you can't just go back too late now, I think the only issue there is feeling immediate consequences too feels so good
@@FranklyGaming This could be addressed by having two types of crossroads the player faces. The first one, where the choices and consequences are very apparent. Then you could see the consequences immediately after making the choice. The second, where the situation is a lot more vague, and the player isn't really sure how the different choices will play out. Those consequences should only be apparent further into the game. Idk, just thinking out loud (so to speak).
@@FranklyGamingI was on Twitter and Josh Sawyer from Obsidian posted this regarding save scumming: "There's a ton of things you can do: use threshold checks instead of RNG, distance consequences of a choice from the making of a choice, build the player's trust that their choices are going to play out in interesting ways even if they might get the vibe that they weren't "good". Pretty much in line with what we both consider to be good game design.
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 didn't watch the video but just the whole idea is stupid - actually I don't even like the fact that you complainers have started calling it something horrible like "save scumming" so that it always just sounds dirty. There are so many reasons why a normal save game is good that anybody complaining about it just rubs me the wrong way. If you don't want to save your game to make your decisions "matter", then don't do it. But don't make the industry think it's a bad idea to include normal saves and to start doing stupid/idiotic things like checkpoints or something just because you don't have any will power. Stupid stupid stupid take. Leave saves alone.
Smart guy ey . Quicksaving should be an option in every game. Devs should give an option in every game not to save or to have only certain amount of chekpoints etc. This video was a waste of my time. If you don't like saving play games that have none, those rugelikes are popular now.
Probably the first time I disagree with you. While you are right about choices, replaying long sequences is the single worst part of gaming for me. I love Legendary Ironman on Xcom, but I'm not buying the new star wars game. In the last one, I was forced to kill the same 20 enemies again, and again, and again for long periods, just to reach the last fight that was actually the interesting one. Will some parts of games benefit from the lack of saves - yes, but I never want to kill the same NPC until I say it's enough, and close the game, and never start it again.
Ya this is a great point I for sure agree I guess for me personally I just enjoy the intensity more than the convenience, I’ll just look up RU-vid videos of other options I want to see usually
Yeah…I usually enjoy your videos, but a claim like “save scumming is ruining great games” is click bait at best, and drivel at worst. Could have put your point across much better in my opinion, rather than resorting the hot take tactic.
