How often do you save your game?

[mainer]

I'm probably what's considered to be a "save scummer", I think that's the term, though I do dislike labeling of gamers and people in general. But if a game gives me the option to manually save, I tend to save a lot, especially before big fights (and after), and conversations or confrontations that could affect the game state. I don't just rely on an auto-save or even quick save, as sometimes those can become corrupted.

Not all games allow unlimited saving. Maybe you can save at anytime, but there's a limit to the total saves you can have. I've learned over the years to backup my saves on a separate drive, whether or not there's a limit to the number of saves you can have. Backing up my saves is important to me, especially when I mod a game, as I never know when a mod conflict will happen and completely corrupt my game. Whether overly cautious or paranoid, it's just something I feel compelled to do.

Not all games allow manual saves, there are games with "check point saves". I can't tell you in nice language how much I hate that system. Maybe a developer has a keen sense for where those check points should be, or maybe they don't. Regardless, it's not going to suit every single player of that game. The one reason I stopped playing the Tomb Raider series of games was because they went to that system (also was the addition of "Quick Time Events" (QTE) that just completely frustrated me. I think the last Tomb Raider game I played was The Angel of Darkness, the check point saves and QTEs just completely frustrated me, and I never finished it. Things may have changed with the TR series since, but I've never had the courage to jump back in.

There are also games like Diablo 2, that just allow you to save the game state on exit. When D2 first released, I hated that aspect. But I loved the game, and the longer I played, I found myself actually enjoying that system. Yeah, you had to fight your way through areas that you'd already cleared, but it's a game about gaining experience, and most of all getting loot. It just works.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you save a lot if that option exists, or rely on auto-saves and quick saves? Is there a particular save game system you like or dislike? Do you back up your saves to a separate drive?

 

[Krud]

Not all games allow manual saves, there are games with "check point saves". I can't tell you in nice language how much I hate that system.

Same! It feels to me like a holdover from console games that couldn't save all the current game data. What's worse is when it LETS you save anywhere, but it doesn't really matter because when you reload it takes you back to a particular checkpoint. I realize there a lot of nuances to capturing the precise state of a game and all of its variables, NPC's, physics, etc, in any given second, which is why I grudgingly accept it when games don't let me save in the middle of a big fight, though when that's the case, I'd prefer it not be a super long and drawn out battle, as I generally don't like having to replay all of that if I did well right up to the last second. But that's still better than Checkpoints.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you save a lot if that option exists, or rely on auto-saves and quick saves? Is there a particular save game system you like or dislike? Do you back up your saves to a separate drive?

I do save a lot, when I remember. Sometimes I forget and go an hour or more into a game, and then it locks up or crashes or I just do something stupid, and realize my last save was an Autosave the game mercifully did when I fast-travelled half an hour ago (in the case of Skyrim).

I used to back up my saves, but then I'd either rarely if ever use them, and on the rare occasion that I did try to use them, they'd be for a different version/state of the game than what I was now playing.

Another scenario that I assume is a holdover from consoles, is having very limited save slots. Whether it's four or a hundred. Either way, I don't like being limited by anything other than storage space. In adventure and RPG games, I like to have saves at various key plotpoints of the game that I can go back to later, but when there are only, say, 25 save slots available, I eventually start overwriting those older saves until eventually all of my saves end up being for just the last fourth of the game, if that. (I think at least one of the Mass Effect games did that, but I could be confusing it with some other BioWare game.)

I also don't get along with the Ironman method of saving, where it loads your save at the start, and doesn't save it until you exit, saving over the one save game. In those instances, I HAVE backed them up before, just in case I don't like the route I took in the game and want to backtrack. I know it's arguably cheating, but it's my game so I don't care. (If I were playing multiplayer that would be different, but I rarely do, so...)

 

[Ryzengang]

I save incredibly often and I absolutely hate non-standard save systems. I just want to be able to save whenever I want. I find it particularly annoying on my Switch because I often play in bed and when I want to go to sleep, I want to be able to immediately save and shut the game down.

It probably sounds weird to people who don't mind much, but a bad save system is enough to put me off from a game. I just really value being able to easily hop in and out without losing progress. Further, I don't think these alternative safe systems actually add anything of value, either. The devs could argue that they don't want save scumming, but I purchased your game and I want to play it on my terms.

So, while they may not be the biggest deal I just look at it from a cost/benefit perspective. I see there being a cost to user freedom to play how they want but I really don't see the benefits to restrictive save systems. Control is a good example: it had a bizarre save point system that added literally nothing to the game. It didn't even increase difficulty; it was just altogether pointless.

 

[Pifanjr]

If the game allows me to save at any time, I'll probably save-scum whenever possible. However, I don't necessarily mind not being able to save whenever. I really liked playing XCOM in ironman mode and Angband wouldn't be the same game if you could just save-scum to the end.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance's system works fine for me too. It just limits save-scumming, but still allows you to save before any major decision.

Even games with checkpoints aren't too bad, as long as there isn't too much time between checkpoints and the game doesn't screw with the difficulty making you redo one part over and over because you keep dying there. But that would be bad game design even if you could save whenever you wanted.

 

[Brian Boru]

Options are a Good Thing!

I'm with y'all who want to save whenever you want to. By all means have a 'dev-preferred' difficulty level where they restrict saves, but otherwise let players decide.

I used to have dozens of saves during my Civilization 4 phase—interesting decision points in a game which I wanted to revisit. But I almost never revisited in practice—for one thing, I'd have no clue what my various thoughts and plans were at the time—and just rolled a new game. For the current game, Civ also saved a user-defined number of saves, a user-defined number of turns apart, which is excellent design.

I'm currently playing Far Cry 5, which only has one save slot—and it's not a slot you can choose, you just click Save in the menu and that's it! Horrible design. But it's redeemed a bit by the game internally saving, so when I die I'm spawned nearby without losing much, if anything. The save file is located at…
C:\Program Files (x86)\Ubisoft\Ubisoft Game Launcher\savegames\<long ID>\<short number>\2.save
…so I can always copy and restore that if necessary.

I don't manually save much in practice. When I was playing C&C Remastered, I had ~3 saves going, just labeled a, b, c, with an occasional Alternative Choice save at an interesting point.

Open World games should have multiple save slots though. If it's a well designed game, there will be multiple approaches to many situations, and it's an obvious player benefit to be able to save before such, so you can go back and see how a different choice would have worked out.

Save the Whale went well, let's start a Save the Game petition!

 

[Sarafan]

When you can save in every moment, I usually do so at least once in a minute. Don't want to loose the progress, you know... This kind of system has disadvantages though. Checkpoint system provides a lot of emotions and tension because there's a risk of loosing noticeable progress. Basically I enjoy both systems.

 

[ZedClampet]

The only time I think having a checkpoint only system is okay is in a game like Alien Isolation. Every other type of game, I pretty much want checkpoints plus the ability to save on demand. If you only have checkpoints, I tend to get frustrated and quit playing. As much as I loved Control, I never knew whether the game had saved or not. I would get to a point where I figured the game had saved, like after a long conversation with an NPC or after a pretty intense battle, and I would quit the game only to find out when I restarted that I had to go through all that stuff and more to get back to where I had been. I just quit playing it. And Car Mechanic Simulator 18 only let you save by exiting the game. It was also good at crashing at the worst times. So I got to the point where I was actually exiting the game pretty frequently just to save the darn thing. Terrible system.

 

[mainer]

I do save a lot, when I remember. Sometimes I forget and go an hour or more into a game, and then it locks up or crashes or I just do something stupid, and realize my last save was an Autosave the game mercifully did when I fast-travelled half an hour ago (in the case of Skyrim).

I've done that a lot in Skyrim, or even FO4 or FONV, games that are just so immersive and familiar to me that I loose track of time, do something stupid to get myself killed or the game suddenly crashes; then realize my last hard save was a couple hours ago. Of all the crashes I've had in Skyrim, I think the one place it happened the most was clicking on the gates to enter Whiterun; click the gates, CTD. That's my crucial test point for any modded playthrough. If I can get past those gates without crashing, I'm usually safe. I always make a hard save outside those Whiterun gates.

I used to back up my saves, but then I'd either rarely if ever use them, and on the rare occasion that I did try to use them, they'd be for a different version/state of the game than what I was now playing.

I have to remind myself to periodically clean out my backup saves folders. Especially saves from a modded game, as those saves are useless if I'm starting a new modded playthrough of the same game. Other saves from un-modded games I'll often keep for a few years. Why? I don't really know. It's kind of a compulsive thing on my part to never want to throw something away. I can't even think of a time where I actually used one of those backup saves, but knowing they're there gives me peace of mind (sort of). Weird.

Another scenario that I assume is a holdover from consoles, is having very limited save slots. Whether it's four or a hundred. Either way, I don't like being limited by anything other than storage space. In adventure and RPG games, I like to have saves at various key plotpoints of the game that I can go back to later, but when there are only, say, 25 save slots available, I eventually start overwriting those older saves until eventually all of my saves end up being for just the last fourth of the game, if that. (I think at least one of the Mass Effect games did that, but I could be confusing it with some other BioWare game.)

You're correct, there are limited save slots in the ME games, at least the originals, not sure if that's changed in the Legendary Edition as I haven't played it yet. I think it's 100 slots, or close to that. Kingdoms of Amalur Re-Reckoning is the same way, with roughly 100 game save slots. I can adapt to those systems, mainly because it allows me to save anytime (outside of combat). In games with that system, I always clean out my save folder by cutting about 2/3 of the saves out and pasting them into a backup folder. I could overwrite older saves with new saves, but I have this old, moldy memory of reading something about how saves could become corrupted if you continually overwrite them. I have absolutely no idea if that's true or not, but I end up doing it out of an over abundance of caution.

Options are a Good Thing!

I'm with y'all who want to save whenever you want to. By all means have a 'dev-preferred' difficulty level where they restrict saves, but otherwise let players decide.

Options! Give me options! I wish more developers would include them within their games, beyond the graphical options. We all have different play styles, and while I understand that game developers can't appease absolutely everyone's needs/wants, just give us more options about configuring the game,

The only time I think having a checkpoint only system is okay is in a game like Alien Isolation. Every other type of game, I pretty much want checkpoints plus the ability to save on demand. If you only have checkpoints, I tend to get frustrated and quit playing.

You reminded me that I still need to play Alien Isolation, as it's sitting somewhere in my TBP pile. I picked that up on some Mid-week Madness Steam sale for $2.

Check point saves have definitely caused me a high level of frustration, which resulted in me quitting certain games. The Tomb Raider series, as I mentioned above, always comes into my mind. I used to love those early TR games, but the switch to check point saves, as well as QTEs forced me to leave that series. That first TR game is dear to me, as it was the first game that I used and addon graphics card, I think it was a Voodoo 2. What a game-life changing experience that was.

 

[Zloth]

Quick Saves: save whenever I want, and really save it - don't just remember my last checkpoint. I definitely want this!

Autosave: maybe every 15 minutes or so. Helps to keep me from hating myself when I forget to save. Definitely want this!

Slotted saves: good for major decisions and even just interesting places that I might want to see again. It's OK if I only have a limited number of these if I've got the above two things - but why have a limit?

Egosoft's X4 gives all three. Sweet, right? Well... there is an issue there. It has a LOT to save. A fast PC in a brand new game takes about 30 seconds to make a save. Slower PC and games with a lot of player assets can take a couple of minutes. Loading takes even longer. There's only 10 manual slots, but many hours pass before I use one. The autosave is a rolling list of three, so you always have the three most recent autosaves.

Some games would be hurt by save systems like that, though. Where would Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor/War's nemesis system be if you just reloaded after dying?

Games that do pull the one-save-only thing need to be VERY good at saving. Subnautica burned me hard because my PC crashed while it was saving game I had a backup, but I still lost a bunch of hours. FIRST you make the new save, THEN you remove the old save. Writing over a multi-file save is a terrible idea.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Some games would be hurt by save systems like that, though. Where would Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor/War's nemesis system be if you just reloaded after dying?

Here's where I have issue with save whenever you want. If a studio makes a game and you can save scum your way through the experience you don't really play the game as its creator intended.

If a game is designed in a way that its frustrating to play without being to be able to save scum through. Either you need to figure out a different approach, or that's a badly designed game! At least in modern times with the advances we've had at this point.

Well placed checkpoints in an action game should make the player learn to play a game well enough to get through, the fun of the game should be in the playing of it, not the beating of it by any means necessary IMO.

Difficulty should be dealt with by difficulty level selection in the menu, affecting mob number/health or player damage for example. Not by allowing the player to save every 3 seconds to get through a difficult section. As @Brian Boru suggests, maybe medium to easy levels could allow save scumming but higher ones not. With a 'this is the way the game was meant to be played' suggestion. I'd accept that as a compromise ;P

Totally different story in non action games, most of those allow saves whenever anyway.

 

[Pifanjr]

Totally different story in non action games, most of those allow saves whenever anyway.

I think save scumming in any game with a significant luck component is just as bad, if not worse. I don't think XCOM for example would be very fun if you just save before every shot and reload if you miss.

 

[Brian Boru]

you don't really play the game as its creator intended

You say that like it's a bad thing
If that really was a thing, the hundreds of thousands of mods wouldn't exist.

I don't give a rats what the creator intended. I quit Far Cry 5 in disgust first time round because what the creator intended went totally against the marketing of the game—"Play your own way" in a nutshell—but am totally enjoying my current playthru because a wonderful modder has enabled me to avoid the creator's intention.

Options are a Good Thing!

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I think save scumming in any game with a significant luck component is just as bad, if not worse. I don't think XCOM for example would be very fun if you just save before every shot and reload if you miss.

I'm a glutton for punishment so I usually play those kind of games Ironman. Is it possible to save before every shot? If so that does kind of suck.

I'm also a little confused by people who've lost saves. I cant remember any time in the last 10 years when I've lost a game save in a game that saves to one slot through checkpoints or in ironman. Guess I've just been lucky with my sample size of one.

 

[Brian Boru]

Guess I've just been lucky with my sample size of one

Very likely. I haven't had a Windows 10 problem since 2016, but lots of other people have problems most months.

Corrupted file, bad sector on disk…

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

You say that like it's a bad thing
If that really was a thing, the hundreds of thousands of mods wouldn't exist.

I don't give a rats what the creator intended. I quit Far Cry 5 in disgust first time round because what the creator intended went totally against the marketing of the game—"Play your own way" in a nutshell—but am totally enjoying my current playthru because a wonderful modder has enabled me to avoid the creator's intention.

Options are a Good Thing!

So here's my angle on that, I know its not the only one .

If I'm watching a movie and I decide I don't like the plot, I don't open up a video editing suite and re-edit the film so I like it more. It's the movies fault it's bad. Depending on the type of game that analogy works more or less. If a game has parts that suck so much I'm quitting I'm not wasting my precious time with it when there are a million other better ones I still wont ever get too.

Mods that enhance graphics and inventory or so on, allow skipping cut scenes etc, sure great. Mods that totally overhaul a game and make it something new. At that point you're basically playing a different game, and that's even better!

Bringing it back around to saves. For me allowing me to quick save at any time in some cases would actually ruin the experience. There are peaks and troughs designed in to good games, and part of what makes some games great for me is when you have that breakthrough and get through a section because you have just got better. Its a great feeling. Having the option to essentially cheat cheapens that, and the temptation to use it might be too much at some points when you have hit a wall.

Very likely. I haven't had a Windows 10 problem since 2016, but lots of other people have problems most months.

Corrupted file, bad sector on disk…

Guess I'm just lucky. I think a lot of my saves are in the cloud and have been for a while maybe that helps.

 

[Pifanjr]

Bringing it back around to saves. For me allowing me to quick save at any time in some cases would actually ruin the experience. There are peaks and troughs designed in to good games, and part of what makes some games great for me is when you have that breakthrough and get through a section because you have just got better. Its a great feeling. Having the option to essentially cheat cheapens that, and the temptation to use it might be too much at some points when you have hit a wall.

I kinda agree, but I also think that there's nothing wrong with adding the option to allow players to save at any time, as long as it comes with a clear message it's not how the game was intended to be played.

Guess I'm just lucky. I think a lot of my saves are in the cloud and have been for a while maybe that helps.

I lost my HDD a while ago, but all the important saves were already in the cloud. I probably also lost a bunch that were only local, but I don't remember missing any of them.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I kinda agree, but I also think that there's nothing wrong with adding the option to allow players to save at any time, as long as it comes with a clear message it's not how the game was intended to be played.

Yea that's why I suggested it earlier. I think that only works if you make it a menu choice at the start and impossible to change after the playthrough has started.

It does kind of bleed then into the difficulty in games and accessibility debate. Should all games even have an easy mode? For me selfishly I wouldnt want it across the board. But I do see that its definitely unfair to some people who couldnt experience the whole of some games due to a disability.

I lost my HDD a while ago, but all the important saves were already in the cloud. I probably also lost a bunch that were only local, but I don't remember missing any of them.

I probably wouldn't notice unless I lost a game I was playing right that moment to be fair. If I go back to a game a long time after I almost always just start again from the beginning.

 

[Pifanjr]

Yea that's why I suggested it earlier. I think that only works if you make it a menu choice at the start and impossible to change after the playthrough has started.

It does kind of bleed then into the difficulty in games and accessibility debate. Should all games even have an easy mode? For me selfishly I wouldnt want it across the board. But I do see that its definitely unfair to some people who couldnt experience the whole of some games due to a disability.

I don't think all games should have an easy mode. There are some good reasons to limit the options the player has to customize the experience. Besides the fact that you can't force the developer to spend extra time balancing the game for multiple difficulty levels, I also understand that games are a form of art and sometimes the developer has a specific type of experience he wants to create that doesn't easily allow for different difficulty levels. It probably means that less people will play/enjoy the game, but that's up to the developer.

That being said, I think most games would benefit from having more options.

I probably wouldn't notice unless I lost a game I was playing right that moment to be fair. If I go back to a game a long time after I almost always just start again from the beginning.

I hardly ever come back to an old save. "Old" being relative of course, as for Civilization a few hours is already old.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I don't think all games should have an easy mode. There are some good reasons to limit the options the player has to customize the experience. Besides the fact that you can't force the developer to spend extra time balancing the game for multiple difficulty levels, I also understand that games are a form of art and sometimes the developer has a specific type of experience he wants to create that doesn't easily allow for different difficulty levels. It probably means that less people will play/enjoy the game, but that's up to the developer.

That being said, I think most games would benefit from having more options.

Absolutely, and generally options are good, yes!

 

[Brian Boru]

If I'm watching a movie

I don't think that analogy works. Movies, books, movies, TV shows—none are interactive like games are. Interactivity is why games are my primary entertainment, the ability to create my own plot, to write my own story.

I subscribe to Sid Meier's philosophy that games should present the player with interesting choices.

I posted a new thread and poll on this topic, so this one can get back to talking about the narrower topic of game saving.

Playing how the game was intended to be played

Topic came up in the current "How often do you save your game?" thread. Three main views: 1. Games should be played as the devs designed it; 2. Games should enable the player to play how se wants; 3. Compromise via options. Please vote, and if you have something of interest to say—ie a lot...

forums.pcgamer.com

 

[Frindis]

Manual saves are for me the epitome of how you do it correctly. Checkpoints can often be too long between, so if there is some type of bug and you have to restart, it really puts a dent in the suspension of disbelief. With manual saves, I choose when I want to and with some games (mostly older) I can also make my own names to the save file, which helps with keeping track of history, but also includes me more within the game's story/location. It is also very nice for whenever I need to reload a particular section where I managed to misclick or do something not intended.

As for how much I save, that really depends on the complexity of the game. In a game like Baldur's Gate, I would save much more often than for example Blade Runner, because there is just so much more happening and I'm more prone to do small or big mistakes. I do try my best not to save too much since I do want to feel like I completed a challenge.

 

[Krud]

I have this old, moldy memory of reading something about how saves could become corrupted if you continually overwrite them. I have absolutely no idea if that's true or not, but I end up doing it out of an over abundance of caution.

Same here. There seems to be at least some truth to that with Skyrim and Fallout 4, in my anecdotal experience anyway. Especially regarding Autosaves and Quicksaves, which is why I try not to rely on them.

 

[Krud]

I think save scumming in any game with a significant luck component is just as bad, if not worse. I don't think XCOM for example would be very fun if you just save before every shot and reload if you miss.

I think the only time I've ever deliberately save-scummed and felt slightly bad about it was at the casino in Fallout 2. (Or was it 1? I can't remember.) I'd save the game, bet as much as they'd let me, roll the craps dice, and if I won, I continued, and if I lost, I reloaded. I didn't get super rich this way, but it made some money-related quests easier.

 

[Johnway]

I think the only time I've ever deliberately save-scummed and felt slightly bad about it was at the casino in Fallout 2. (Or was it 1? I can't remember.) I'd save the game, bet as much as they'd let me, roll the craps dice, and if I won, I continued, and if I lost, I reloaded. I didn't get super rich this way, but it made some money-related quests easier.

Ah yes, fallout 1 the infamous casino table. Truth be told i just got my gambling skill to 60ish percent, bet really high and just held down 2 buttons on my keyboard and just broke the game as i became a millionaire. Bought all the best gear with no shame. Still didn't beat the game as no money would save you when Super mutants STILL out gunned me and had explosive weapons. i wanted to keep my AI friends alive and they had a horrible habit of sucking and dying,


But back to the topic at hand. yeah i save scum. Depends on the game tbh. in turn based strats like xcom i would certain do it with every turn if it was a seriously bad situation. But after some time i got good enough that i didn't have to resort to it. it was only during the final boss fights or (the chosen in xcom2) that i went sort of crazy. Now battletech i went absolutely savescum to the point that short battles took 2 hours. Now that my mechwarriors and mechs are top notch i complete missions without barely saving. Still do it at the start and once in a while if i want to try something daring.

FPS games, probably after every engagement or after clearing a section. Sometimes its a room, sometimes a set of rooms, sometimes during a fight depending on the engagement and how stressed i am.

RTS games - save during critical events, after key objectives or when i've got to perform complex or coordinated attacks like sieging an enemy base. I just can't afford to throw units away. Longer missions i save just to avoid redoing large amounts of it. EG: defend the base for 15 minutes! save every too minutes or after a particularly tough wave.

 

[Krud]

no money would save you when Super mutants STILL out gunned me and had explosive weapons. i wanted to keep my AI friends alive and they had a horrible habit of sucking and dying,

Ah, yeah. Money can't buy smart AI, unfortunately. STOP SHOOTING IAN IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, TYCHO!

FPS games, probably after every engagement or after clearing a section. Sometimes its a room, sometimes a set of rooms, sometimes during a fight depending on the engagement and how stressed i am.

Well, if that counts as save-scumming, then I do it then, too.

I just can't afford to throw units away. Longer missions i save just to avoid redoing large amounts of it. EG: defend the base for 15 minutes! save every too minutes or after a particularly tough wave.

I hate those missions, especially when it seems like the enemy AI didn't have to actually work to get those units. But yeah, I don't have the patience to redo an entire mission if I screw it up at the end.