/v/ - Video Games

Wrong, faggot.

Another question for this thread is: "Do you think this formula could work nowadays?"

Does "no save" mean the same thing to you as "one autosave"? Like in Roguelikes for example, if you save and quit, you either have to resume or start over, you can't savescum, the spirit of the genre is to disallow that.

If it was a simple arcade style game like Touhou, great. Any kind of involved or simulator game, I want to be able to save, just in case

>>15962486

I guess some games can't coexist with the saveless feature like for example an RPG. As to answer your question I mean NES style of no saving just plain insert and play.

cheap and stupid

instead of balancing the game and making gameplay really fine tuned

they buff the enemies and remove saves besides checkpoints

completely retarded solution

every game that does this is guilty of it, no exceptions

there were games were you could save at any time IN THE FUCKING 90s, when everything way harder

THERE IS NO EXCUSE

*everything was

>>15962506

I think it gained traction because the games were longer and people suck? This is excluding genres where they need a save feature.

Arcade games came and went years ago, faggot.

>>15962515

what? games were long as fuck, they were so long back then everything had episodes and CHAPTERS of content, they were so long companies released 1/4 as shareware

>>15962525

Mach rider

Excite bike

Super mario bros 1-2

castlevania

double dragon

These are a few examples of games that can be completed in less than an hour with the proper practice.

Depends how long the game is.

Something like Metal Slug I'm fine without a save but if we go for Fallout: New Vegas there's no fucking way I'll play the game till the end in one sitting.

Depends on the game. It's better for the stuff you'd see on the NES like castlevania (which had checkpoints, mind you), but for a long ass RPG that takes 50 hours, no save is just dumb.

As for the second point, dumbing down difficulty to just "it's hard" and "it's easy" is dumb. There''s so many factors that go into it that it can't be so binary. It's also the same line of thought the "dark souls of x" retards popped up.

Sage for shitty OP.

Only when there's no RNG bullshit that can make for an unavoidable loss. Shitty roguelikes are very guilty of this, since procedural generation is RNG-centric and most of them lump in more instaloss RNG intentionally.

>>15962469

Saves are for bitches.

>>15962825

Can you just walk somewhere and win without even getting in one battle?

Saves are fine, but there needs to be a limit to them to make failure meaningful. Appropriately spaced out save points is a good thing, save anywhere and aggressive checkpoint systems are cancer and take out all meaning of failure considering you lose at most like a minute of gameplay.

>difficulty dictates how many quicksaves you have

Save model is part of game design, and models that work well in one game would be terrible in others.

>arcades save high scores, but a lot of modern games are pay-to-save

>passwords are saves that let you cheat

>only one save point is good for dungeon crawlers and games that keep returning to a central hub like PSO

>Roguelike/Iron Man saving is generally cool, but for games where you come back to life it can just make things tedious

>DQ has save points at kings/churches only, FF puts save points in dungeons; up to you which one's better DQ

>most Falcom games let you save anywhere outside of combat, but since I'm a shameless fanboy this doesn't feel cheap

>old Resident Evil saving was bullshit but it reinforced the survival aspect

I've beaten LttP and FFIV without saving before (and in Zelda's case it was a 100% run). It's soul-draining when going through it, but feels damn good when you finish.

I mean way back when games were short but hard as fuck to encourage people dumping quarters in, which translated over when the console market emerged. Old games maintained difficulty as it was the way games were made back in the day, but eventually passwords and the like allowed them to maintain progression and allow people to make longer games. Which naturally just sort of lost it's soul somewhere in there and became "lets make a movie but I don't want to pay for film or actors, I know lets use unity"

>>15963172

Early FF games did not have save points in dungeons. Did that trend begin with FF6?

>>15962469

As an IT vet., the ability to go back in time and undo your mistakes is definitely unique to IT

It's a boon

Humans learn by mistake, being able to do mistakes over and over until you perfect your technique is godsent

Dodgerolling simulators won't make you better

Train yourself to think 2 moves ahead, then 3, then 4, etc

No matter how smart you are, no one can live without making a single mistake

It's the ability to know and avoid mistakes beforehand that makes you better

Experience > arrogance

>have Sega Saturn

>save battery died

>didn't know I could replace it with any generic CR2062 battery at the time

>beat old RPGs in one sitting

Comfy.

>>15963637

Sounds good but having to replay the whole game up to the part you haven't learned yet is a waste of time. Especially if it gets progressively harder. It isn't difficult to get back to that point. It is just tedious.

>>15963682

>It isn't difficult to get back to that point. It is just tedious.

I don't know what kind of shitty games you play to develop this attitude, but this is precisely where things like compelling level design and interesting scoring systems come into play. Good design makes segments enjoyable to do over again even after mastery.

>>15963692

Guess I'm just not autistic enough to enjoy doing the same thing over and over again.

Have some examples of games that do this well?

>>15963695

A lot of later arcade and arcade-like games have deep scoring systems that provide the player with something to return to in the early stages even after simply beating them becomes trivial. A few that I think do this particularly well are Hellsinker and MECHA Ritz.

>>15963704

Oh and a third aspect that both of these games feature that I think is worth mentioning is adaptive difficulty. Advanced players can make these games throw more stuff at them and thus make those previous stages more challenging not simply by virtue of trying to find all sorts of crazy tricks for boosting their score, but by changing the objective difficulty level of the game.

>>15963704

Oh, well yea I guess if we are talking about bullet hell or shmups it is fine since they are made that way by design. I was under the assumption that you guys were talking about genres that don't normally have those type of systems. I don't think anyone is going to argue that bullet hells should let you have save points at the end of each stage.

Adaptive difficulty is a feature found in short arcade games as early as 1985, but it has rarely been developed much in console games or especially games without an arcade heritage. One example of a popular hit with adaptive difficulty is Resident Evil 4. RE4 spawns more enemies with more health as you progress longer through the game without dying. The difficulty ceiling granted isn't really that high, but there's a popular example at least.

In my first run of dead rising, I when I died, I didn't restart with my full character, I restarted the game at level 1. Over and over, until I got gud, until the point where I can consistently beat it in one life, in one day, if I have time. Same goes for the other games, obviously

Best fun I ever had in a videogame, more games should let you do this

>>15963746

Isn't that just resetting? I think all games let you do that.

>>15963749

Dead Rising is specifically made for you to be able to beat it as a low level character, if you know what you're doing, but the game increases in difficulty rapidly if you don't know what you're doing. Really, Dead Rising is a really unique game, trying to do the game in one life is a challenge, rather than a chore in most other games(Due to bullshit parts of it you don't want to sit thru or hard bosses ect)

I too like to do 1cc runs.