Not sure how to feel about saves after every act (2.2.1)

[Kumin]

With the release of SRB2 version 2.2.1, the game now saves after every act completed. Previously, the game saved after every zone completed.

Personally, however, I've always felt like saves at the start of zones was the best way to handle saves in classic Sonic, as it strikes something of a compromise between the old Sonic 1/2 style of "game over = replay game" and the general gaming norm of "game over = no need to replay anything but the current stage."

Classic Sonic is all about replayability, after all, and even if being forced to restart a zone is frustrating, mastering (rather than just beating) a zone that's giving you trouble will better prepare you for subsequent playthroughs, and the player will feel satisfaction at how much they've improved as they breeze through a zone they previously dreaded. In contrast, requiring a player to only surpass a challenging act once makes it all the more likely that upon their return to that particular act, it will give them trouble once again.

Plus, so many good changes were made to the game in 2.2.0 to minimize the frustration without changing the save mechanics, like increasing the default number of lives with each game over (effectively scaling the difficulty based on player performance) and moving Metal Sonic from Egg Rock to Black Core.
I feel like SRB2 had struck a balance better than just about any game in the main series in this particular regard, which is why it's somewhat disappointing to me that 2.2.1's new save system throws that off.

Of course, I know there will be those who will say that they "just want to play the game," and that replaying a difficult stage just to get back to the part that kills them isn't worth the frustration, so I understand the inclusion of this system for those who feel that way.

Still, I'm really not sure how to feel about it becoming the only way to play. Perhaps the new save system could serve as some sort of "easy mode"? Of course, then there's the issue that comes with "too many options," especially since the character selection already acts as a sort of de facto difficulty selector...

What do you guys think? Should the save system stay the way it is? Should it be reverted to the way it was in 2.2.0? Should there be an option to choose?

 

[TehRealSalt]

I completely agree, I thought SRB2 finally got it perfect and then immediately took a few steps back as soon as I saw that change

 

[toaster]

Agreed. 2.2.0 was well-rounded from a game design point, and the design of the Save Cards on the save select menu not having act numbers is deliberate *because* acts didn't need to be distinguished; 2.2.1's change there is a poor move that diminishes the value of Continues to officially less than worthless when you can just exit and reload, which spits in the face of all the decisions to make them easier to collect for second chances' sake.

I don't really care who made the decision, but just in case they're reading this: (edited:) The decision to both make continues more common and then make them completely useless outside of no-save is faulty and you should change it back OR commit to it entirely ala Mania, with disabling continues' sounds and etc entirely. Of course, this makes all the hard work we put into polishing the Game Over screen, with its cute Continue sprites, and etc absolutely wasted, so I'd prefer the changeback but whatever.

 

[Jaco4126]

Agreed. 2.2.0 was well-rounded from a game design point, and the design of the Save Cards on the save select menu not having act numbers is deliberate *because* acts didn't need to be distinguished; 2.2.1's change there is a poor move that diminishes the value of Continues to officially less than worthless when you can just exit and reload, which spits in the face of all the decisions to make them easier to collect for second chances' sake.

I don't really care who made the decision, but just in case they're reading this: (edited:) The decision to both make continues more common and then make them completely useless outside of no-save is faulty and you should change it back OR commit to it entirely ala Mania, with disabling continues' sounds and etc entirely. Of course, this makes all the hard work we put into polishing the Game Over screen, with its cute Continue sprites, and etc absolutely wasted, so I'd prefer the change back but whatever.

I think this post brings up some very good points. You shouldn't be wishy washy with these things. If you can get a gameover and still be able to start on the specific act you got said game over on, it makes continues ultimately pointless. If your gonna make a bunch of unique stuff for the continue screen, and make a bunch of methods for getting continues, the continues should at least have some sort of value.

 

[clairebun]

Respectfully, I should caution that every person posting right now, including myself, has the bias of experience, and so the opinions in this thread may not be reflective of how this change will be recieved by an outside audience.

I believe saves after every zone creates accessibility problems for new players, since many of our acts take significantly longer to complete for some players than in the 2D titles. I think the convenience of saving after every act is hard to understate; even for an experienced player like myself, it's really pleasant to be able to play one act and then pick up the next at a later time frame. And while this does make the design of continues a bit clumsy, we could still salvage them by restarting the player at the nearest checkpoint.

Still, I'm really not sure how to feel about it becoming the only way to play.

Except it isn't. You also have no-save mode, where continues become much more important, and then there's ultimate mode for tryhards like myself.

 

[TehRealSalt]

If continues just restarted you at checkpoints, then they just become glorified extra lives, not worth their rarity or even being a separate "item". You could replicate the same behavior by turning continues into 3-up moons.

Keeping the per-act saving and instead keep Continues as a No Save mode only thing feels like the most reasonable compromise to me, and its one that has precedent in Mania.



(side note: This whole thing makes the already unwarranted change to Tokens giving Continues instead of 50 Rings even more of a Bruh Maneuver)

 

[Goldenhog]

Not gonna lie, I'd much rather have the old system back. It gave Continues actual value without making Game Over into the uber punishment it is in S1 and S2. However, the S3&K system of continues being basically a three-pack of lives might be the best option without awkwardly chopping things off like Mania if saving is to be kept as being on an act basis rather than zone. And that way, there's a reason why the Continue? screen shouldn't just be disabled in the post-game levels.

But if I may throw an absolutely unrealistic suggestion, I'd get rid of Continues altogether. What Salt said is basically what it comes down to in any case, so might as well sidestep the middle man and just give players more lives.

 

[Kumin]

I believe saves after every zone creates accessibility problems for new players, since many of our acts take significantly longer to complete for some players than in the 2D titles.

I'm all for accessibility, personally, which is why I don't have any issue with the very concept of an easier save system's existence.

I do, however, have an issue with the absence of the harder save system which better prepares new players for subsequent playthroughs.

And yes, specifically "new players." I was never talking about veterans in the first place; the subject of this argument comes solely from a concern for how this change will affect new players' early playthroughs.

Except it isn't. You also have no-save mode, where continues become much more important, and then there's ultimate mode for tryhards like myself.

That's not what I mean. I take issue with the fact that it's the only way to play normal mode with saves.

Rather, my problem is that the gap between playing with saves and playing with no save is considerably larger now, further dampening the experience for those who seek something between the two.

And something between the two, the way I see it, is the optimal way to first play a Sonic game. After all, nobody is going to play on No Save their first time (well, almost nobody, and I fear for anyone who does).

Specifically, I'm talking about how every aspect of good classic Sonic design serves the dual purpose of making the first playthrough of the game enjoyable while also training the player to be able to run through each stage easier and faster.

That is, after all, the basis of classic Sonic game design, and while I agree on all fronts that saving after each act makes the game more accessible, it's doing so at the expense of not preparing the player as well to play through the game a second, third, or fourth time.

It's a tricky balance to maintain, and in my opinion, it's a question at the absolute peak of Sonic design philosophy. How much do you emphasize one over the other? How can you make each playthrough more fun than the last while also aiming to make the first playthrough as fun as possible?

I had previously thought that SRB2 had found just about the best possible balance, which is why this change, which seems to throw off that balance quite a bit, is so concerning to me.

Again though, I don't have an issue with the game having an easier mode. My issue lies in the fact that the game now lacks a considerable portion of the formula which led me to love it in the first place.

And I should make something very quickly clear:

Respectfully, I should caution that every person posting right now, including myself, has the bias of experience, and so the opinions in this thread may not be reflective of how this change will be recieved by an outside audience.

If it will help me make my point, I'll easily admit the fact that I'm basically a 2.2 baby, having never played past Deep Sea on any previous version before giving up and losing interest.

I absolutely understand your concern regarding accessibility for new players, because prior to 2.2, I was one of the victims of those "accessibility problems." That's exactly what has me so convinced that 2.2.0's solution was so perfect.

Simply put, classic Sonic just isn't classic Sonic unless you can feel the way you improve through surprisingly little play. Going back to an early zone after completing the game makes you wonder what the hell ever slowed you down before, and that thrill of breezing through it all is exactly the appeal of the entire design ideology.

That's not a feeling that I want any player to miss out on, but without some mechanic in place that ensures players get practice on stages that give them trouble, they won't be able to feel that feeling as strongly. They'll still get tripped up on the places they got tripped up before, and that feeling will get muddled.

That's why I think the 2.2.0 system was superior. However, that shouldn't be at the cost of causing players to quit the game, which is why I understand why the change was made. Still, wouldn't it be nice to have an option?


[Edit:]

even for an experienced player like myself, it's really pleasant to be able to play one act and then pick up the next at a later time frame

This is also not really what I was talking about. I agree that it's a bit silly to make players restart a zone if, for some reason, they have to stop in the middle of playing it. My concern lies specifically with getting game overs.
Perhaps the game could feature some kind of quick save feature like in New Super Mario Bros. Wii? It lets you pick up where you left off, but once you load it, you lose it, and you have to return to the beginning of the zone if you game over regardless of the quick save.

 

[Mystic]

So basically, there's a core problem here that's hard to correct. The previous system was designed long ago with a series of assumptions that no longer hold true. In an ideal world, I'd absolutely like to kick people back to the start of the zone. Doing so is actually beneficial for a lot of reasons that I think a lot of players of modern video games really don't like to talk about, but to give a basic outline:

• It causes players to need to play more content. This provides practice at the game and increases player skill. This increases the likelihood that they can complete the hazard that caused them to lose the next time they get there.
• It provides more gameplay variety. When a player can continue to attempt the same hazard infinite times, this rapidly causes fatigue for the hazard as they just bang their head against the wall until they succeed at it. Losing forces the player to play some different content for a while.
• It provides a measure of tension because failure is an actual option. The entire point of a lives system in any game that isn't accepting quarters to continue is to create this tension.

The problem here is that right now, we've got zones that are just way larger than the system was designed to handle. Back in 2.1 we already were pushing it with CEZ and ERZ, but now the zones are so much bigger that players may get kicked back upwards of a half an hour or more. It's one thing to have to redo a couple minutes worth of progress, but when you lose that much time, it doesn't feel worth it to even bother anymore. There's also the issue of simple ability to play in segments. SRB2 was admittedly designed with the assumption that the player will sit down and play in a long, single sitting, but that's not how a lot of people play games nowadays. When it takes a long time to get to save points, and that amount of time isn't known to the player beforehand, that makes it incredibly difficult to schedule play time. SRB2's stages keep getting larger and more dramatic, but the player isn't given any idea how big ACZ1 is compared to CEZ2, and thus it's very difficult for anyone on a time limit from real life commitments to sit down and play because they don't know if they'll have a save point before they're required to quit.

Obviously I prefer the old system, but feedback has been pretty clear that it's a serious problem. I'd love to address it in another, more comprehensive way if possible, but right now we don't know what a better solution looks like. Saving every act is an easy, quick change we could do right now that helps solve the worst of the problems for the players this was affecting with minimal (but real) immediate downsides, and that's why it was implemented.

 

[Kumin]

There's also the issue of simple ability to play in segments. SRB2 was admittedly designed with the assumption that the player will sit down and play in a long, single sitting, but that's not how a lot of people play games nowadays. When it takes a long time to get to save points, and that amount of time isn't known to the player beforehand, that makes it incredibly difficult to schedule play time. SRB2's stages keep getting larger and more dramatic, but the player isn't given any idea how big ACZ1 is compared to CEZ2, and thus it's very difficult for anyone on a time limit from real life commitments to sit down and play because they don't know if they'll have a save point before they're required to quit.

If this is considered to be a big part of the equation, then I'll once again advocate a "quick save" feature that temporarily saves progress until the game is loaded back up again, but doesn't protect the player from restarting the zone upon game over.

Of course, this doesn't account for the whole "time lost" factor. Perhaps I'm just more resilient than most, but I honestly hadn't even considered that aspect in restarting levels after getting game over any more than in other classic games.

Personally, I found my time to be thoroughly worth the effort, but I can understand others not feeling the same.

 

[fickleheart]

I think saving per act is a vast improvement, because it doesn't actually cut out any content and lets people play the game in shorter bursts. It took me a while to beat 2.2 on release because, when save points were around half an hour apart on a first playthrough, I didn't have the energy after coming home from work to sit and play for that long. The option to play one act at a time makes the game a lot easier to take for a quick spin between other obligations. And while you could argue that it forced people to replay earlier content instead of getting stuck on the same obstacle forever, that doesn't hold up if the obstacle they're stuck on is at the beginning of the first act, and most of SRB2's maps have enough branching paths that the player can usually just take a different one if they're frustrated with the one they're on.

Obviously, it does make continues worthless outside of no save mode, but I don't think it's a good idea to insist on keeping something in place just because it took effort to implement to begin with - that's a sunk-cost fallacy. In my opinion, continue systems stopped making sense when they stopped costing money to use, and a more flexible save system is well worth obsoleting them.

I don't think "S3&K did it" is a good excuse, either. S3&K's advantage was that the two acts appeared as one contiguous level, but even that game arguably started to drag on in length in some zones. Part of making a good homage to the Genesis games is critically evaluating what aspects make sense when fit into the whole of what SRB2 is, and I'm personally really happy that the save behavior was changed for the patch.

 

[time gear]

I honestly, truthfully, don't feel as though replaying zones after game over instead of individual acts is too harsh of a punishment, and here's why:

The first point in my argument is that even if you are a complete novice, you are given ample opportunity to obtain 1-ups. You can obtain them as score bonuses at the end of each act, they are placed within the levels themselves, you can obtain continues from special stages, etc. If you reach the point at which you are struggling for lives and game overing a lot, the odds are you aren't ready for that point in the game anyway. A first playthrough shouldn't be designed around incentivising players to rush through the game as quickly as possible, but rather to explore through the levels and progress at their own pace. The player should never be pressured or directed into a part of the game they aren't ready for yet, it should be the players own fault through the built in difficulty curve if they rushed ahead and somehow reached a part that is too difficult for them.

My second point is that getting thrown back to act 1 after game overing at act 2 or the boss isn't really that big of a punishment. You are most likely only looking at 5-10 minutes lost, but with the advantage of having explored through the zone a bit already, helping the player to do better next time. Even for zones that are taking the player longer to complete, I still maintain the philosophy that if you aren't ready to clear levels quickly, doing so shouldn't be considered a priority. The game already doesn't have a time out feature, you can take as long in the levels as you need to whether that be due to carefully navigating through the obstacles or simply taking the time to explore properly. This behavior should be encouraged on a first playthrough, speedrunning through levels is a reward for experiencing them multiple times.

I honestly can't think of any reason why anyone would complain about the old system aside from a pure lack of patience. I know the feeling, losing a chunk of progress all at once can be frustrating and I might even decide to put the game down for a while and do something else while I calm down. I feel like this is an important aspect to what makes great games so great though. SRB2 isn't a story based game, the story exists only as an excuse to get to the running, jumping and spinning. If someone is the kind of person to not want to play a platformer anymore period just because they have to restart a whole level, it begs the question of if the genre is even really for them. It's not the end of the world to lose a little bit of progress like that in a game like this. Indeed, the punishment only acts as seasoning to make the taste of victory so much greater, as you feel more genuinely accomplished to finally get past a part that was giving you so much trouble.

Games like Super Meat Boy that are trial and error and high precision/timing based have reason to be incredibly forgiving in regards to lives. They are designed to make players die even so much as dozens if not hundreds of times in the same level, making progress gradually, a little bit at a time. SRB2 is not one of those games. I sometimes get the impression as though gamers these days are making the wrong comparisons when moving from one game to another. They get spoiled by a luxury that is necessary in one game, and expect it to exist in another game that doesn't need it. When you judge a game by it's own rules and go through it at a pace that is comfortable to you, you shouldn't need those additional luxuries where they aren't needed.

That's my two cents, anyway.

 

[DylanDude]

I prefer this new system. To me, this isn't about punishing players, it's about convenience. Now, I can just hop onto SRB2 and complete an act real quick. No more having to commit to the game for upwards of 15 minutes (if we're including Special Stages). This may sound incredibly minor, but after beating the campaign dozens of times, this convenience is definitely welcome in my mind.

I also don't think getting sent back an act or two for getting a game over to punish bad play is something worth reverting this change for. Reminder that Egg Rock Zone especially can take newcomers over half an hour to beat, and I imagine the future levels introduced between RVZ and ERZ will be relatively similar in difficulty. A player doesn't need to keep getting sent back to an act they've already completed because they can't pass a challenge in the next one. That's not going to teach them anything about that particular obstacle.

I'm typically in favor of stripping lives out of games entirely, for the record, but the current system is a great compromise.

 

[clairebun]

@Kumin

I strongly disagree with this idea that per-zone is the correct balance for the reason I stated earlier: many of our zones are much larger than the classic games. It can take a player anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes just to beat CEZ2 for their first time. Sonic 3&K was never this outrageously drawn out even on its most confusing zones.

Additionally, the reason most classic Sonic games didn't even have save files is because of costs, not because of deliberate game balancing choices. Forcing the player to redo what might be 30 minutes worth of gameplay for them when we have the choice to cut that number in half isn't campaign balance, it's artificial difficulty. Changing the save system from "every three levels" to "every level" is not something that I would consider a misstep to SRB2's "formula" in any sense of the word.

Some of us like challenge but simply don't have a lot of time. Others play games for the journey but not the trial and error. If we want our game to be as inclusive as possible, then that will mean respecting the end-user's time and resources, not expecting them to hone their muscle memory before reaching the end of the campaign. Anyone who wishes to push themselves in our campaign already has options available to them through No-Save and Ultimate modes. The idea of having a redundant, slightly worse save mode to fulfill some perceived gap in gameplay progression options just seems really bizarre to me, and I think it would be better served as an addon modification for those who would be into that sort of thing.

 

[SoupBowler]

I have a few things to say about this:

I don’t care about continues honestly. They are nice to have for no-save mode but I would be fine if the game just didn’t have them at all. Sure, it makes no-save mode riskier to play, but most of the time I play no-save is either to test some addon or if I wanted to screw around in devmode for whatever reason. Any other time I play with a save file out of convenience (and I can revisit levels on a save file if I beat the game once with the only “bad” thing being my lives and emeralds carrying ove, so there’s that to consider). I understand that the devs put a lot of work into making continues: the source code, the sprite art, the point tallying, etc. I also understand the arguments as to why to keep it for no-save playthroughs. I just personally don’t see the point given how I play.

Mystic:

It causes players to need to play more content. This provides practice at the game and increases player skill. This increases the likelihood that they can complete the hazard that caused them to lose the next time they get there.

I’m sorry if you didn’t mean this with your wording but “forcing player to replay more of previous levels after death =/= extra worthwhile content”. If I wanted to get better at playing just ERZ1, then I would grind it in record attack. If I wanted to beat the game, I would want to get past ERZ1 once and move on from it. Sure, most acts in the same zone share similar gimmicks to where they teach and test players on how to use them and get better, but in the few cases where that doesn’t apply and the player loses all their lives on one level and have to replay all the parts they beat (or even mastered) then saving per act would make a lot more sense. Most bosses don’t use the gimmicks of previous levels to test you. If a player can get through two acts without searching around for many more lives (or just misses them), and then struggles on a boss and game overs, they might feel ticked off that their progress went back so far if it only saved per zone. There’s also the one exception with BCZ where act 1 is a race encouraging you to go as fast as possible, making every thok count, and then act2 is a boss where thokking is dangerous and not recommended that technically breaks the “thematic zone” philosophy, but it is the last few tests before the final boss so you could argue it doesn’t matter either way.

Mystic:

It provides more gameplay variety. When a player can continue to attempt the same hazard infinite times, this rapidly causes fatigue for the hazard as they just bang their head against the wall until they succeed at it. Losing forces the player to play some different content for a while.

Me attempting the same zone over and over instead of the same act over and over is the same action of me banging my head against the wall. Except now, I have a thicker wall to mine through! (This is not just assuming the player is using brain-dead strategies like rushing through everything. Even if you take your time and learn at your own pace this affect can still happen if you just don't know what to do).

How on earth does that provide more “variety?” Rather, more [I}meaningful[/I] variety. People don’t like having their time wasted, even if they actively want to get better at video games. Restarting a whole zone instead of just an act makes the player feel like they’ve been in the same location for way longer than they want to. Even if the individual acts are different in layout they share so much of similar identity and gimmicks that it might as well be an extension of the first act (or at least perceived as such when considering time investment). Having saves be per act introduces less fatigue. And when people start getting that feeling of wanting to move on, they either rush things and revert their skills instead of improve, or they put the game down to take a break.

Replaying a whole zone again after death does not always provide the player practice at getting better at the game. It may for some, but each person is different. I’d rather there be an option to set where and when the game saves (per zone or per act) then to be stuck with a single option that I personally do not jive with.

Mystic:

It provides a measure of tension because failure is an actual option. The entire point of a lives system in any game that isn't accepting quarters to continue is to create this tension.

Lives can create that tension on their own because you don’t respawn at a checkpoint. Restarting a zone after a game over is less so of a “this is bad” type of tension and more so a “this is annoying” type of tension. I get that the more progress saved will eliminate some of the worth involved in lives, and I don't want them removed, but we aren't arguing whether the game should save per checkpoint or something even further.

 

[Mr Beagle]

There are potential upsides and downsides to saving after each act.

The upside is that is you spent 20 to 30 minutes per act meticulously sleuthing out every extra life and ring box (for high scoring and life accumulation), then starting over from act 1 when you are late into act 2 or in act 3 could feel like a major setback.

On the other hand, if you were abusing the system to try to get all of the chaos emeralds (because you could get the tokens again and again), then that just made it harder to get them all.

Thirdly, there's the potential issue of creating accessibility to the point where it's more or less impossible for a new player with little skill to not complete the game quickly. Super Mario Odyssey comes to mind in how dying just takes away coins. Maybe it's because i'm a little more old-school when it comes to games (and the options can always be changed), but I don't think we want to push new players all the way through the campaign without expecting them to have some skill first.

 

[glaber]

I think a reversion would be for the best only if a new quick save system was included. Most modern rereleases of classic games now include something like this. Even games in the Sega Ages line like Sonic and Alex Kid.

The system we have now, it's more reminiscent of the save system we use to have in Final Demo 1.09.4 and below.

Also While my own mod, Dimension Glaber is also guilty of granting saves on every level, I do it because the mod isn't structured like a normal sonic game where each zone lasts 2-3 acts.

 

[time gear]

Honestly I feel like this has generated enough controversy to warrant a toggle to choose between saving per act and per zone. The key issue seems to be that inexperienced players are unwilling to experience large setbacks while experienced players don't want to feel like the difficulty has been reduced. In that case, just one option is going to generate a lot of backlash either way, so why not just give the players a choice of how they want each save data on the save select screen to function?

 

[clairebun]

Honestly I feel like this has generated enough controversy to warrant a toggle to choose between saving per act and per zone. The key issue seems to be that inexperienced players are unwilling to experience large setbacks while experienced players don't want to feel like the difficulty has been reduced. In that case, just one option is going to generate a lot of backlash either way, so why not just give the players a choice of how they want each save data on the save select screen to function?

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense. Experienced players are exactly the kind who are least likely to be affected by this save system, so allowing the player to swap between the two just means that the per-zone system is going to go entirely unused.

I'm not interested in "building character" or some shit for new players either, I want them to feel that their time isn't wasted so that they're more likely to come back to the game instead of giving up. This controversy honestly feels pretty manufactured to me.

 

[Mystic]

The fact of the matter is that generally we want the progress loss from failing to not exceed 15 minutes, and per zone saving was causing that to happen regularly.