Do you prefer free saves, or "realistic" (single save) mode?

[ssssnake]

Do you like to play with the ability to do multiple saves, or do you prefer "realistic" mode where you have a single save and can't quit without saving?

I've done both. The "realistic" mode definitely can get your palms sweaty when you enter a battle with serious consequences if you lose. The game is more fun for me when there's more at stake.

However, I find that I play a lot more conservatively on "realistic" mode, and will avoid high risk battles. I end up generally only fighting battles I know I can win, which is boring.

After doing both "realistic" and free-save, I tend to play on free save mode now, and give myself a self-imposed limit of 3 "do-overs" for a play-through. I use these do-overs for engaging in risky battles that I wouldn't do if I couldn't go back to a previous save. Some of these lost-cause battles have been my best ones, and I would never have attempted them if I didn't have the chance to go back.

What are your preferences?

 

[vicwiz007]

I find free save to be better because it lets you make your own fun, and it's safer for crashes, bugs, stupid mistakes, etc. After all, if you want to play that hardcore style there is nothing stopping you from doing so in free save except your own willpower.

And I will always say there is no shame in playing any way you want in a singleplayer game.

 

[Lord Brutus]

Warband has several spots where, without free saves, your game is screwed. Rescue a prisoner, he turns hostile, you're screwed. I fully expect Bannerlord to have these places as well since Arda has already said about some reported errors, "We can't reproduce it."

 

[Dead End]

Not only am I worried about bugs, but there are some mechanics that sort of bug me (heheh). I love WB, but if something that feels unfair happens I'll always run it back. I guess that's a bit weak, but I don't have a ton of time to play, and I play games to have fun. If Bannerlord isn't as jank by all means I'll try it once I've beaten the game with free saves.

 

[JayWalker]

Warband has several spots where, without free saves, your game is screwed. Rescue a prisoner, he turns hostile, you're screwed. I fully expect Bannerlord to have these places as well since Arda has already said about some reported errors, "We can't reproduce it."

+1 I used to play realistic when I first started but then I would never rescue lords and the game could bug out pathfinding or spawning location during a high stakes siege and it felt cheated. I accept the consequences of my actions in game, but I play free save to avoid these situations

 

[AmateurHetman]

Ideally I prefer to play on 'realistic' as it is more interesting to deal with the consequences of anything I do. But I only play 'free save' now as it can be extremely annoying when something glitchy/buggy occurs and ruins your progress.

 

[LeChat]

Both.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

If a game experience is harmed by the ability to savescum then that is the fault of the game. There are plenty of ways to discourage savescumming using mechanics rather than just blocking it entirely.

Here are some issues I have with restricted save systems:

1. Once you get to a point where you save, you become uncharacteristically aggressive and foolhardy all of a sudden because you are free to act without fear of losing saves. This creates a weird situation where you're playing around the saves rather than playing for the character. It essentially kills many types of roleplay. Fallout 4 had this issue with it's survival mode where you save when you sleep.

2. Alt-F4 still exists if you want to roll back.

3a. Unless the game is bug free (impossible), you're going to avoid certain mechanics which you know might screw you over by no fault of your own.

3b. You are inclined to avoid random mechanics.

4. None of these systems are particularly good at enforcing hardcore / speedrun / hotseat runs because they are just as easy to circumvent as without.

Here are some ways you can discourage a player from savescumming without having to mess with the saves:

1a. Reward them a bit for getting defeated. The player is there to have fun, and if they get rekt, even if it's their fault, they might ragequit. Giving some small bonus to them is enough to make them think twice about loading a save, or worse still, quitting and never coming back. Kenshi does this: if you get beaten by bandits, you probably get looted for food, but you also gain a stat (toughness) which you can't gain except by getting beaten up, so when you wake up you get stronger.
There are also a few enemies in the game which eat you alive rather than just looting you, making those areas feel way more dangerous.

1b. Dont over-punish the player for losing. In warband you can't actually die, which is good. You only get looted for a small amount. The aim of these mechanics is to get you through a campaign without leading you to places where you can't progress.

2. Don't incentivise perfectionism. Too many games have a blatant ranking system where the smallest mistake bumps you down to A tier. I don't have a problem with scoring systems, but the more prominent they are the more likely the player is to restart once they make the tiniest mistake. Ideally you want to show a player that they're doing well without showing them how far they are from perfection.

 

[paladinx333]

Free saves. Always free saves. Not just in Bannerlord, but in all games.

I actually have an old program I wrote to back up single save games on the fly so that I had some backups in case something went sideways in the game. It saved me several times in single save games.

 

[Younes]

Not saving is the most fun to play. I get it if you're new to the franchise but i mean not saving should be the default way to go

 

[froggyluv]

Never Free Saves -destroys immersion. Been that way since Operation Flahpoint campaign with their ONE save -treasured that bastard. It keeps the memories seared deep into your brain.

 

[Rabies]

I'd honestly never even thought about this until I read this thread.
I always play with "realistic" saves (no quit without saving), and it's never even occurred to me to do otherwise. I've never had a problem in Warband with a bug ruining my progress; and besides, Warband is very forgiving if you do lose a fight and get captured. It doesn't take at all long to get back to where you were.
It's like when you're playing cricket. You're caught out off a thin edge and the umpire judges that you didn't touch the ball with your bat. But you walk off anyway because you know you're out, and every run you'd score after that would be a false achievement. That's how I look at it anyway.
Bannerlord will do things differently from Warband when it comes to character death and inheritance, and it may well have major bugs that halt your progress during EA. But I've never had a big issue starting again from the beginning in that instance, anyway. And making a balls up of certain decisions or actions in a campaign can actually create some of the more interesting and unpredictable outcomes, which I think are fun.

 

[Dearmad]

this is one game I always played in ironman. Bit wasn't real ironman, you never died.

However, now that death can occur... I dunno. Definitely gonnas tart on save whenver, and move to ironman asap.

 

[NA1F]

i think the free save will take some of the immersef from the game
Especially in a game like this.. or Especially in Bannerlord Because there is no game like it
Your character will die on the battlefield and you will play with his son, but free save. Your character will not die on the battlefield because you will load the save again and again every time your character die.

I think the best way to play bannerlord is the realistic or the ironman mod

 

[Bloody Bill]

I use free saves partly for bug/crash protection but mostly because some times I hit places where there is more than one road I want to follow. I'll save then as well as make a new save under the path I decide to follow first then come back and try the other path(s) later.

 

[JustinTime49]

Not saving is the most fun to play. I get it if you're new to the franchise but i mean not saving should be the default way to go

Oh my goodness I am just thinking about your reaction should you crash without saving at all for the playthrough.

As for me, I used to save scum a lot, but now prefer to play on realistic. It is a lot more frustrating but forces me to play more strategically and conservatively in the overmap and battle.

In Bannerlord, I'm definitely going to start with free saves though as I can only imagine the swarm of bugs I'll encounter by doing things the devs never thought a man could think of.

 

[Lord Brutus]

It's not a question of save-scumming or playing strategically or conservatively. There are bugs in Warband, like rescuing the hostile prisoner, that cannot be worked around without reloading a previous save. I find it more immersion-breaking to fail that mission because of a bug in the game than to reload.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Free saves.
Because that time you forgot you had a bow and 3 quivers equipped and you went into the tavern and the belligerent drunk beat the **** out of you while the bartender was all "stop no shooting!" over and over and all your companion leave you and the king indicts you and the neighbors come over and laugh at you and your bully from 2nd grade you haven't seen in 25 years breaks through wall and punches your computer and nobody ever loves you again.
I've lost 2 campaigns to corrupted saves on realistic on 2 different computers, the same way. In-between battles of defending a huge siege, when it goes to auto-save. Using the back up save is no good because I'm still in the same situation and it just bugs again after the long siege fight, in between more long siege fights. There's probably a way to change the save function by changing text files yourself, but I didn't know how to do that stuff back then. I think the AI/system is just trying to do too much at once at that moment and breaks the save. On top of that, realistic save can be ignored anyways by just exiting and reloading, so why not just use free save and self control? It's really nice to be able to experiment too and I've become much, much better at winning at bad odds because I've been able to try, try and try again to see how I can actually win a hard battle.

If I ever use a realistic type save in Bannerlord, it'l be long after the EA is done and I have full confidence that there will be no bugs. I'm all for the die and continue as an hier system though, I just don't want my game ruined.

 

[RoboSenshi]

I dislike the "realistic" save thingy. I prefer having freedom in the way I play. Perma death will provide all the risk in battle I need. Plus bugs and other glitches could ruin your game.

 

[Count Delinard]

I like it when games strike a middle ground: No free saving but autosaves every x time that remain accessible forever (not overly-punishing, but at the same time not too forgiving).

For example, in Bannerlord I wouldn't mind autosaving happening once a week (in-game time, maybe something like 20 mins in real life?). This would mean you would not be able to save before a battle just in case you lose, but if you do need to roll back because of a bug or simply because you want to, you only lose like 20 minutes of gameplay. Not terrible, but still annoying enough to try and avoid it if possible.

Alternatively, I'd also be happy with a system where the game only saves when encamped (which would take a couple of in-game hours to set up and leave you vulnerable if being chased) or when visiting a town. I liked playing Metro Exodus on hardcore ranger because while it didn't allow me to save whenever I wanted, it did autosave every time I slept at night. This meant I had some sort of control over when to save but it wasn't as easy as pressing F5 every 5 minutes while in an enemy camp. Instead I needed to actually walk all the way to a shelter and sleep. It'd punish me if I got too greedy and died (going 40 mins without sleeping/saving because I was focused on looting some place) but it rewarded me if I planned my exploration ahead and slept from time to time.