I’m not sure you’re getting what I’m saying, right?
Let’s say I make a Kingdom called Stonehearth, and currently, the only way to save is manually. So, with the Auto-Save feature, it will constantly make a Save-File, and Overwrite the last Save-File everytime a new Save-File of that exact Kingdom is made.
This way, it take up the workload of having to manually Save your game, you don’t have to manage two or more Save-Files of the same Kingdom, and it will prevent you from correcting mistakes, because if you have an extra copy of a previous Save-File, you could essentially make your Kingdom perfect and correct all the mistakes after you made that Save-File, which will essentially ruin the progress of your Kingdom because it’s not really “legit”.
If I want to do that, then surely as a player, that is my prerogative? I can appreciate such a feature on say “Hardcore” mode, as is the way in other games where you are unable to save the game yourself, and simply have a single save-file which means you have to always face the consequences of your actions.
But for general gameplay I don’t believe Stonehearth is/should do that. This is very much about how the player wishes to play, and if I wanted to have a couple of save files on the go, one before I built a massive structure, another before I delve deep into a cave, then I should be able to.
Okay, but this follows the idea that you should be unable to make multiple saves or reload previous saves should you make a decision you’re not happy with.
It would seem most logical to simply have the two save files, one that automatically saves and runs parallel to your manual save, and your manual save.
I will say that I don’t like to do this either. However, if I don’t like to do this, then I just won’t. Having a parallel autosave is an extra option. It means that you can do it that way if you want to, and if you don’t (like you or I), you just don’t. It’s not like the game defaults the usage of these save files, you still have to manually load them if you want to pick up at that point.
Also, you still get the automatic backup this way, and you don’t have to “manage two or more saves” because the autosaving is done automatically. In fact, it means you get the option of not managing any saves at all and relying solely on the autosave. Autosaves also are typically marked explicitly as autosaves and usually stored at the top of the list when loading, very clearly recognizable, so there’s not much of a chance to get confused at there being more than one save file for a world.
You simply have one save file that is the normal save file name, and the auto save file with (auto) after the save file name. So you know that ‘savefile1’ is a savefile, and ‘savefile1(auto)’ is the auto save of that save file. Couple that with date and time markings, I don’t see how it is confusing?
I was thinking that there should only be one file. Why is it that only one file can manually save, but the other auto? It should only be auto as it takes off the workload and you won’t need to have another unnecessary copy of the Save-File.
Saving a game is hardly a task, it requires barely any managing, and isn’t exactly something I lose sleep over .
You can choose to manually overwrite whichever save you desire to, you have that power. All the autosave does is, after a certain amount of time determined by the user, overwrite the already existing autosave. You don’t have to mess with it it just does it.
Have you honestly never played a game that has an autosave, and a manual save? It’s pretty common.
Edit: This is a pretty good example. Thinking about it, the majority of games, unless for specific design reasons, are likely to have autosave and manual save.
I have never played a game that makes an extra unnecessary copy of the file I am playing, and If I do, I’ll delete that unnecessary copy. It’ll just take up space.
I doubt it’s true that you’ve never played a game like that. Unless you selected them specifically for that purpose. Really, most games do this. And anyway, for most games, these days, the amount of space taken up by saves is almost negligible.
no one is accusing you of lying… I think we’re all just amazed that you apparently haven’t played a game that incorporates the auto-save + manual save concept…
so, you must be at like level eleventy-billion on tetris!
Seriously, I have never even heard of parallel saving before this, and I think the concept is quite stupid. I have never heard of any of the “big” or “AAA” games that have this feature.
Well it’s probably not called parallel saving, I just called it that as it made sense.
Why is it stupid? I just … why?
Literally every game I can think of has it in some form.
Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Civilization V, Football Manager, Halo, Borderlands,Portal, Crusader Kings, Gears of War, Deus Ex, Batman, Splinter Cell, Grand Theft Auto.
The list is pretty much endless. Any time at the beginning of a game when it says “do not turn off when you see this icon”, any time you hit a checkpoint, pretty much every game has auto save in some format.
What games have you played in the last week or two?
Yes, you mean the map seed then. For reference, Minecraft maps all have a particular seed - if you make two worlds with the same seed (assuming other settings are the same too - eg large/normal sized biomes), the two worlds will be identical. You can do this manually if you want as well, by writing down the seed (F3 key should display it IIRC).
First, bugs are a big problem. Even if the full release is totally bug-free (I’m sorry, but nobody is that good), what about modders? Having a save to revert back to whenever I break something is a really powerful tool in modding. Especially when we’re talking end-game modding.
Second, that’s only your opinion. If I want to save-scum or w/e to build the perfect settlement, why should I be prevented from doing so by you? This is a sandbox game that you can lose after all. By default, Minecraft just has you respawn indefinitely if you die. By contrast, Stonehearth is like Minecraft on hardcore mode all the time.
Third, what if a genuine mistake happens? Eg, my little brother loads my save, or whilst I’m out someone dusts the keyboard & un-pauses the game… you get the idea. Oops, 3 hours later, and my (good) save has been overwritten by a gigantic steaming pile.
Fourth, it won’t work. People will alt-tab, manually copy/paste their favourite saves, save-scum with them, and brag about not save-scumming, because who can tell?
Now, if you want to make it easy to distinguish between saved games… well that’s very easy:
Let players name their save games. “Nova Londinium 3 (No Hunter)” will tell me a lot more than “Nova Londinium (Day 32)” or w/e the default save game names are.
Make it clear that it’s an autosave. “Nova Londinium (Auto-save, Day 32)” etc.
Let players turn off auto-save.
I can’t imagine anyone finding it hard to distinguish between saves if these 3 suggestions are implemented. You can either save manually & have no unnecessary auto-save files, or use auto-save and just don’t save manually. Only one file created, and no file space wasted*.
I also agree with the others in finding it hard to imagine that you play games without parallel save game options. If it’s not an absolute majority of PC titles that do it, then certainly a substantial minority offer this. Especially when it comes to strategy, roleplaying and sandbox titles (FPS games often just rely on auto-save, as a means of making it “more challenging”, although maybe it’s just due to console-port nonsense).
Actually, a list of the games you play might prove interesting in this regard.
*Although seriously, hard drive space has never been cheaper. Unless you’re going for a Stonehearth mega-project (in which case you’ll WANT multiple saves and this argument is pointless), you’re not going to be seeing 100MB+ save files ever, so big deal if you have 2x 5MB save files or 4x 50kB save files or whatever.
Well, why would you need two copies anyway if you’re going to only use one?
But more importantly, who the !@#$ cares if I am not familiar with this who “Auto-Saving also creates an extra copy” sort of thing. Does that really matter?
