Saving yourself while killing zombies

Dead Rising seems to be at the other end of the spectrum from a game like Prey - where the death system is so forgiving that you can literally run through the entire game without fear of making a mistake.

There definitely needs to be a better middle ground, though.

I have no problem with the save system. It can be aggrivating and sometimes you have to redo lots of stuff, but it gets your adrenaline going a little bit more everytime a psychopath pops up unexpected.

If the game allowed you to save anytime, a la Oblivion, I would save every 3 minutes, not care about dying, and be less immersed in the game.

I have almost thrown the controller a few times but I'm always back at it in a couple hours.

anyone else remember festers quest on the NES? an incredibly difficult and long adventure game with no save function. we almost threw the NES out the damned window after making it all the way to the last stage and dying.

"much more intense and authentic experience."

I agree with this. At first, I was frustrated with the saving games. However, I believe that in the end, it makes the game more challenging, without feeling artificial.

Then again, I thought the tape ribbons in Resident evil were great, because it made saved games a limited commodity like everything else. Really added to the whole "survival" aspect of the genre.

Fester's Quest = most difficult game ever

I have to agree, the spread out save points really does add to the intensity of the experience and I feel a very satisfying relief when I get there after accomplishing quite a bit.

Frequent saves ruin a game experience. Maybe for a middle-ground, check points for dying could be used, but it penalizes a player in some way (or reward a player for not using the check points).

www.itradevideogames.com

I actually like the save system in Dead Rising. A little frustration is good so that when you do beat it, it feels more rewarding. Plus it offsets it a little by allowing you to keep you experience if you decide to restart. Save anywhere games make it too easy to beat the games in my opinion.

"Leaving your system on for days..."

Sounds like a recipe for zombifying your 360! We used to leave the SNES on while playing Super Ghouls and Ghosts, but I think I'd just end up with my second 'red circle of death' if I tried that these days.

Well designed save systems are good.

Save-anywhere systems are not well designed ever, and pretty much equal giving the player unlimited health.
Unless they're the kind that you can only load once, which several games have utilised successfully.

@ #3...

God, I had forgotten about Fester's Quest. Why the hell did I keep playing that game? That was seriously the devil. I'm pretty sure I chewed my start and select buttons off for that one (yes, I really did that)

Why not just let people save whenever? That way, those that hate replaying a half hour worth of missions don't have to because they can save every 5 minutes, and those that like that feeling that there is a serious repercussion for death can have it their way, also, by only saving once every 30 minutes.

Seems to satisfy both sides of the spectrum.

I like games with frequent saves with respect to time. I like to be able to finish each piece in under 10. But, each chunk should be very challenging. Halo1 was the first game that I really got into that had a perfect, imo, save system. Frequent, but yet the game was still very challenging (if you had the difficulty high enough)

I remember the save system on the NES. It was the Pause button and the power button to the TV >(.

I also remember saving games on shadowrun on the Genisis then finding out the battery died in the cart and the saves were gone. Once again >(

This "load once" system intrigues me. Having never played such a game this may be a ignorant question, but wouldn't it be too easy to game that system into an unlimited save-anywhere? Save, die, do your one load, and then save again thirty seconds later?

I'm working on a number of mobile-platform games designed for casual play without ditching the Real Gaming Experience(tm), so finding a save system that works is something I've become very interested in lately.

"How about this for a compromise: get rid of save systems altogether, forcing gamers to leave their system on for days to beat tougher games. It worked on the NES ..."

Hardly a compromise...

It's like saying a compromise between democracy and communism is a monarchy.

supersocialist-

Mobile games are completly different. Don't ever make a mobile game without a save anywhere function, or a suspend/restore function. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting around bored, wanting to play a game, but not starting it because you know you only have 5 minutes and won't be able to make it to the next save spot. I think the best way to handle these things are save anywhere, but if you die, you go back to a "real" save spot. That way, dying still sucks (as it should), but you don't lose the ability to put the game down if you need to.

Classic NES Flash Black..

Used that many times.. Id never think of doing that with my 360.. Maybe an Hour break but not like I did with my NES..

If you want an example of a brutal save system, look no further than Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter for the PS2. I managed to beat the game on my first play-through (without dying!) but had to go literally HOURS between saves. Not to mention having to slaughter multiple "bosses" in a row just to get a save. The game itself was mediocre, but I have never felt so much anxiety playing a game as I have with that one.

The save system in Dead Rising wasn't that bad actually, except for the fact that it didn't feel intuitive. Save points are in just about every part of the mall, but it was easy to forget that you should jog down that little hall to the bathroom and save before heading out to whatever mission you were on. The few times I died without saving shortly prior to death, it was due to my own forgetfulness, not a game limitation.

Besides, the entire game is time-limited. Barring the Survival mode, you have between seven and eight real-time hours to play through the whole thing. How many times do you need to save in that short period? Keep in mind that if you follow the main story (solving the "cases"), the game will pop up several non-standard save points for you, often before critical battles or some of the tougher missions.

I think some of the criticism aimed at the save feature may be misdirected frustration at the game's deceptive difficulty. After playing the demo, one expects to go into the full game and tear things up with abandon. However, the full game ended up being a little less mindless zombie slaughter, and a little more planning, strategy and management of limited resources.

The save system in Dead Rising is definitely fustrating depending on what you are trying to do. During one pass through the game, I was going for the "saving 50 survivors" achievement. I got about half way through and the missions got too close together that I ended up losing a scoop. If I could have reloaded a much earlier save, it wouldn't have been a problem but I was forced to start the whole game over again.

Then I got further in and saved. Little did I realize that I had saved after not noticing a hidden survivor and got the "IS DEAD" message. Had to start over again.

It doesn't have to be a "save anytime," but they should have offered more than one save.

The issue with Dead Rising is not that the saves are so spread out, its that you only have one save slot.

If they just gave you the option of reverting to an earlier save point (the start of your current case file) it would alleviate the frustration of not mapping your time correctly and ending up in a situation where your last save puts you in a situation where you can't reach the next case file target location.

I still love the game, but for me I think the save system is actually making me explore less of the game. I don't pursue as many scoops as I should out of concern of missing out on the required cases and having to restart from the begining.

what people are overlooking in a save system is that it's never, never, never going to be a one-size-fits all kinda thing. it's always and forever going to be decided on personal preference. forcing your opinions on the player is a "bad designer, no twinkie" sort of situation.

that being said, one of the most briliant, yet overlooked features of halo is their multi-tiered difficulty settings.

if they want an easy time of it, let the player have more save points and fewer badguys on "easy." otherwise stick it to them with "legendary." more(!) zombies. tougher zombies. fewer save points. make them prove their mettle if they dare.

especially these days when everything is online aware and there are badges or achievements to be bragged about.

"dude! you did dead rising on legendary! awesome!"

m3mnoch.

I'm not trying to shamelessly plug my own blog, honestly, but I find it interesting that I just wrote a 3-part post on this very topic a few months ago. My thought is that games with inconvenient saves, while adding to realism and the feeling of survival, also really hurts those of us with less free time, and it's an ever increasing issue. Not being able to save and put down a game at a moment's notice is a difficult thing to deal with when you are an adult with a job and other responsibilities. Sometimes, you have to just drop the game right there and then to take care of things. It's hard enough to find enough time to string together 30 minutes of gaming, at times, so not being able to save easily and keep your accomplishments at a moment's notice can be a real problem.

In any case, I don't want to repeat my articles word for word here. I will post links here, in case anyone is curious to read them. Feel free to check them out, and apologies if this seems a blatant way to "plug" my blog. I normally try not to do this, but it seems so topical now.

http://jchensor.blogspot.com/2006/05/saving-in-games-part-1-who-needs-sleep.html
http://jchensor.blogspot.com/2006/05/saving-in-games-part-2-not-worth.html
http://jchensor.blogspot.com/2006/05/saving-in-games-part-3-save-points.html

P.S. If it is not kosher at all to post links in a joystiq response, feel free, moderators, to edit them out from my post.

Aliens vs. Predator, prior to the '98 patch, showed how a game can become incredibly tense without saves. You couldn't save in game, you had to beat a level. Considering that the aliens randomly spawned throughout the whole game, and that the marine could take maybe one or two hits before dying (predator automatically healed, and the alien just exploded if hit), it made the game tense, tense, tense. On top of that, if you could meet ceartin conditions per level, you would recieve a cheat (and you couldn't cheat to get a cheat or else you couldn't progress the game). This was effective, but so frustrating.

That's great for Capcom. Dead Rising is one of the most fun and tense games I've played in quite a while... well not so much once you have the small-chainsaws lasting @ x27.

When I first started the game, I was a little frustrated with the save system as well, but I think the game is supposed to make you feel a bit claustrophobic, and the lack of save slots makes that a reality. Dead Rising is a much deeper game than it appears at first glance. Because of the constant ticking of the clock and the single save, you must actually plan your next moves. It requires you to think in an ocean of mindless zombies. So I say, "Hats off to Capcom." I hope to see the trend of solid, well thought out games continue.

I think the ideal is checkpoint combined with one-time quicksaves. What I mean by that is, saves that also require you to exit the game, and the save is erased if you start again. That means that you can stop at anytime, but can't abuse the save system to do ultra-small sections of content perfectly - you still have to beat section X as a whole chunk, but not in one sitting.

And I didn't know Dead Rising only gave you one save slot - can you save it onto multiple memory cards or anything?

#21 is correct...
What the reviewers are griping about in DEAD RISING is not the frequency of the saves...it´s the fact that the save system seems to be incompatible with the 72-hour timed scoop system...and that´s not because of the frequency of the saves. It´s because you only have one slot! You might save and not be able to reach the next main scoop! (i actually like the save system...infrequent saves make it more tense...but i do wish we had more slots)

The manual ACTUALLY says that you can have more than one save slot if you use 2 storage devices like a memory card...But i find that a bad design choice! Why not just GIVE players more than one save slot, instead of telling us we can do that using a memory card?

I too had a gripe with only one save slot. I just so happened to have saved right before I was supposed to be at a case. I didn't make it to the case in time and my previous save point was only a minute before it was due.
It was partially my fault for not paying attention to my watch, that AM/PM thing got me turned around somehow. I was into the second day already so I never got to beat the game. Now I have to start over. Very frustrating to say the least.

Also I don't have the time to play DR for hours at a time. I loved Oblivion because I could jump in, do as much or as little as I had time for and then save when needed. It really helps for gamers on the go.

I just go the game yesterday and haven't experienced some of the frustration you all have, but so far, I like the save system. As others have said, it does make you think about your next move, and makes you more wary of those nearby zombies.

Not to get off-topic, but the only real big qualm I have with the game so far is the size of the text (it is virtually unreadable). Yes, I have a CRT, but it's a 36" CRT, and I don't plan on buying an HDTV anytime in the next few years.

The save system absolutely pisses me off to death with Dead Rising. I havent played it very much since I bought it,maybe 3 or 4 times,and it's due to the save system. Everytime I make any headway at all in the game,about 2 hours goes down the drain becuase I either,

-Die trying to get to a save point after i've finished like 3 missions

-Can't save because im in the middle of a big mission and don't have time,so then I die during the mission and start all the way over again

Last time I played this game was about 3 days ago. I got into it and made some headway,then got put into some mission where I had to fight off this big cop and for some reason this game won't let you defend yourself against the bosses,you need a gun or you die basically. I lose and then have to start so far back from the lack of save system I just snap out and turn off the 360 (and i'm very few for game rages).

This game pisses me off so bad that the only "memories" I have of the game is me snapping out at it's flaws.

After playing the game, I believe the save system was put there for a reason. It forces you to make sure you are well prepared before going out into the mall by collecting the necessary items and planning your route to where it is you are going. The idea of saving your progress and starting over is there for those who think the game is too difficult.

At first, I hated the save system, now I agree that it only adds to the experience of playing the game.

I think the best way to do it (and the way it is implemented in many mobile games) is for there to be two types of saves. One is the standard "start from here any time" that works like normal, and has conditions for use (in a town, use a ribbon, whatever). In addition to that, there is a suspend function - you can save anywhere, anytime with the restriction that using it stops the game immediately, and as it loads, it deletes itself. That allows you to stop for dinner or because you have to go to work/school/etc. without getting the "infinite life" problem.

Having a single save file on a console game is unforgiveable nowadays. I suspect that most households with gamers have more than one person who wants to play a game, and forcing each of them to have their own memory card is just stupid.

to get the "survive for 7 days" achievement on survival mode... you pretty much have to play 14 hours straight in real time. no saves no nothing. you turn it off or have it freeze and you have to start all over.

haven't attempted this one yet, but i'm sure i'll be leaving my 360 running for a few days because i certainly don't have 14 hours in one shot to devote.

So many reviewers will dock a game extensively just because it won't let them save and reload whenever they damn well please. At it's core this is grading based on the presence of lack of a feature, which is bad: games should be reviewed based off of a comprehension of its overall design and a recognition of how well that design is carried out.

As far as games being frustrating go, well here's a tidbit for you: well-gauged frustration is a big part of gaming. If you could do everything you want whenever you want in a game, it wouldn't be very hard. Maybe the implication that this is always a bad thing is why so many games seem easy these days....

You've all raised the same points I was gonna.. Dang...

DR could benefit from a one-time temp save, like Mario Advanced 3, and the 360 could benefit from a DS/PSP style sleep mode.

At first, the save system made me stop playing, but I gave the game another chance, and I'm playing it from the start again. I like the new game+ part of it.

I love that I have this fear of dying while playing the game. And it's genuine. At least moreso that Resident Evil, for example. Like, yeah, sucks when you die, but you're saved 5 minutes away. Dead Rising, you're doing an hours worth of work over if you die, which really, really sucks, but it gives you a hell of a reason not to die.

Here's my take on gamesaves:

The people that want to be able to save anywhere tend to loose that sence of immersion and just want to run arround and be careless hack-n-slash. So... make there be a mode where you can save anytime, anywhere, but there is no plot nor storyline.

Then have a mode with cinematics, with a plot, character backstory and such, but with very limited save points. This would seem to me to please both sides.

Both options would be on the same disc, so you could play it in either mode, which would you pick?

@#20:

While I agree that Halo had a very well-executed checkpoint/save system, I think you may be incorrect as to the number of checkpoints available to any given difficulty level. The checkpoints in Halo (and Halo 2) are hardcoded into the levels at certain points (which makes it possible to avoid them for interesting results), and since the levels did not change by difficulty, the checkpoints were always the same in the same location. The difficulty of course was that on Legendary it felt like more time had transpired between checkpoints because it was so dang hard, but it was actually the same distance.

(One interesting sidenote regarding Halo 2's save system on cooperative mode is that on Legendary difficulty, if one person dies BOTH players are automatically transported back to the nearest checkpoint. This gives a sense of realism without instigating player-vs-controller warfare.)

Another pretty fair save system is in Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox. You are only allowed to save at "save statues" and even then you only have a limited number of saved game slots to use (30, I think). While that game is very difficult and frustrating at times, it never felt like the save game system was cheapening the experience; it felt pretty natural.

"This "load once" system intrigues me. Having never played such a game this may be a ignorant question, but wouldn't it be too easy to game that system into an unlimited save-anywhere? Save, die, do your one load, and then save again thirty seconds later?"


When you save, the game quits. Then you can load that save once. That's all.

Games that use it that I can remember off the top of my head are Breath of Fire 5 (US version) and Zelda: Majora's mask, but I'm sure there are many others. Works great in combination with "regular" saves at greater intervals.

@36.
Diablo II also does this. (even offline single player)

supersocialist -
Since no one else seems to have answered your question, I'll do it (apologies if I missed someone else fielding it..)

Every game I've ever seen with a "save anywhere, but load once" option requires you to exit the game after the save. Thus, if you need to go somewhere, you can save, come back to exactly where you were, but you can't revert there from a death. Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow is the most recent game I can think of with a system like that. It's a really good system for something where you want the limited recovery from death, but you also need the ability to move on quickly. The first Hitman could've used something like that (that game was infuriating sometimes)

Personally, I like the idea of limited saves, if you allow it to be scaled with difficulty. It's really a matter of preference. While some people feel that it increases realism, others feel that it's artificially inflating the difficulty of the game.

I generally like the difficulty, but I don't necessarily feel it's more realistic.

Anyway, that's my 2 pennies

I'm mainly a pc gamer and I can say that I'm quite happy with the norm of save-anytime. Yeah, it can be abused, but then if you want to make the game trivially easy there are plenty of ways to do it other than saving often. Taking away a feature doesn't "add" to a game, it just gives you less freedom to play the game how you like.

Lekko - Maybe it should be the opposite. I tend to see games as story lines with the combat and stuff as obstacles to get through. I really, really hate having to repeat a bunch of the story line (and it's accompanying hoops) just because the developer thought not letting me save was a good way to make the combat more intense.

@29

"Having a single save file on a console game is unforgiveable nowadays. I suspect that most households with gamers have more than one person who wants to play a game, and forcing each of them to have their own memory card is just stupid."

It's not quite this bad, actually. As it turns out, each profile has only a single save file, which means multiple people can have a game save on the same console at the same time.

Still not perfect (IMO), but I just wanted to clear that up.

Matt- I agree, with most FF games, you basically play to see the FMV parts. Although, western RPG fans just like to skip the storyline and get back to playing the game. This is their main criticism of the series "I like to play my games, not watch them.". To them, it's just a hack and slash battle with pointless movies here and there, so the save system should reflect that.

Also, I'm basing the idea of systems where you can save right after a major story event, but not whenver you want. Say, 5-6 major save points throughout the whole game. If you play without the plot, you can save at anytime. Also, with the save after storyline part, the earlier sequences are skippable, so you don't have to re-watch it a billion times. (that just plain gets more annoying.). Although, playing through a whole level to get to a cheap boss that kills you in 5 seconds is frustrating too, which brings us back to the original article of why Dead Rising's save system is annoying.

I dunno... need to spend more time thinking about this.

In my opinion, Dead Rising desperately needed an autosave feature that saved after every mission at least. I mean, Capcom pretty much doctored the game to screw you over, thus the reason they let you keep your stats when you accidentally save and end your game at the death screen. Who honestly gives the player a chance to save their game...then boots them to the main menu?

Dead Rising was an alright game, but the story sucked and Capcom really disappointed me with the cheeziness of the entire thing. The saving grace, however, is the many ways in which you can kill zombies. If the game was strictly mission-based, I wouldn't still have it..that's for sure.

Having multiple saved profiles on a game annoys the crap out of me, so I don't mind the overwriting issue. But trying to extend your short game by screwing the player out of an hour or so's progress...lame. But that's the trend I've seen in these new games. Make the game short, but either extremely hard and taxing (GRAW) or throw in a horrid save system (Dead Rising) to make your game SEEM longer..when it isn't. I hope they find a middle ground soon. And I think they may have in Saint's Row..although I'd love to see autosave in that one too. My copy locked up last night after two hours of work and I was tempted to never touch it again despite it being an awesome game. That, my friends, is why the world NEEDS autosave.

Dude... The third Zombie from the left owes me money...

I WANT MY 2 DOLLARS!

This game is a POS. Fighting zombies should be scary, not funny. Funny its for little kids and old people, and gets old fast. This is what happens when you have a weak and limited console

I like Dead Rising's Save system, it has the gloss of realism without being too limiting in realism.

As many others have already mentioned, the singular nature of the save slot is one of the few faults with the save system.

Our Xbox360 is shared between two people. The fact that we'd be forced to get another storage device if we wanted our own seperate games seems a bit harsh. I can't imagine this scenario without blood in a larger household.

Indeed, I could buy a memory card to fix the problem. I'd just rather not.

To Ethan Thomas:

Have you ever watched a zombie movie? This game vaguely echoes 'Dawn of the Dead', if you've ever seen that.

Are cult zombie movies great because of their straight-faced, zombie-killing plot? Are most of them even genuinely serious in nature?

Of course not! Don't be daft.

This ironic, silly humour is integral for a game like Dead Rising to work. Capcom are quite seasoned zombie-killing-game developers... I'm willing to bet that at least part of the cheesiness was a decision to be intentionally goofy.

The cutscenes and voice acting continually teeter on the edge of hilarity.
Could you tell me the showerhead weapon isn't intentionally meant to be funny?

I think the cheese adds to the charm of the game. Generally zombie games aren't meant to be taken seriously.

> I suspect that most households with gamers have more than one person who wants to play a game, and forcing each of them to have their own memory card is just stupid.

What is really stupid is not buying the premium set that includes the hard drive. A law should be passed so that whenever someone buys an Xbox Three-Shitty instead of the premium set, both that person and someone at Microsoft should be kicked in the testicles. And I am not being sexist here; I think women who fall on either side of that penalty should be required to have testicles installes so said testicles can then be kicked.

I passed up numerous Xbox Three-Shitties back when it was rare to come across an Xbox 360 of any kind and I am glad I held out for the hard drive (but disappointed that my Xbox 360 was defective and Microsoft replaced it with a filthy used one instead of repairing the defective one I bought or replacing it with a new one).

And to address in advance any points about the extra hundred dollars, I would like to point out that the difference in price between the two sets is less than the cost of two games at ridiculous new $59.99 standard price, so anyone who can afford the less expensive set and at least two starter games can afford the better set; it might require saving a bit longer to afford all of the same games, but it is worth the difference--especially since the better set includes the wireless controller and the combination standard-and-HD cable.