I don't like the idea of save limitations. If it was there as an option for those that want it, great. But full access to saving as per OB is the way for me.

I must say I completely agree to this. I really like the idea of living with consequences and feel like with my lack of willpower it can be hard to emulate this if the game doesn't support it. Especially with quests. One of the nice things about Mass Effect 1 and 2 is that you didn't always see the fruitage of your choices before it was too late to go back and change them (even though you could save in most scenarios unless you were fighting).

Also some people noted that they wouldn't like this system at all because of the potential for bugs to arise. I have to say that this is an unfortunate reality, that there are bugs. But even in Halo, if you check-pointed next to something that kept killing you within the first 10 seconds or so it would actually put you in a different checkpoint about 30 seconds earlier (I'm not sure how it does that, it must have a special way it does its checkpoints) and it was extremely well implemented.

I would like to say that potentially it would nice to vote on best case scenario even though the reality might have bugs. If anything, your save could secretly incorporate more than one instance of your character just in case there is a bug or you die a lot, you could go back just a bit further and sort of "opt out" of that exact check point.

Oh god I didn't think of them changing the save game system. If they change the PC version to where you can't save whenever/wherever you want to, it will be a major disappointment and game killer for me. I often only get time to play in small spurts and often have to quit playing right away and come back at convenient times. If I am forced to have to play for a considerable amount of time to reach a save point or have to fast travel back to a location to save, it would destroy my gaming experience and most likely cause me to delay purchase until a significant price drop. I hope and pray they keep it the way it's always been.

Save points is so 1990's and early 2000's.

I doubt they'll make that big of a mistake getting rid of the save system that allows you to save anywhere.

i would prefer a system where i can still save whenever i want, but the game also auto saves on a set schedule like every 2 minutes, or 5, depending on what you set it to in addition to the zoning saves. While i love TES and appreciate difficulty, i prefer difficulty without frustration so i can feel that i am achieveing something without breaking up the fun by replaying a lot of things I already did. But as an optional "hardcoe" save setting I see no harm in the implementation, it couldnt be as rough as the dead space 2 hardcoe saving style. Cheers! :foodndrink:

This and more reasons....i want to save anywhere i like,whenever i like.
Not because i don't like dying...i actually want to get my backside kicked in this game at times.I like a challenge.
To take away the option of just saving when you want,well....it's just plain stupid in my book.

How in the world do you 'accidentally save'? I think the essence of saving is that it is entirely by choice, excluding autosaves. You can forget to save but you have to be out of your mind to accidentally hit escape, click save, then click on your old save.

Edit: Also no thank you to this idea.

Yes you can only name with console commands but its faster than going through a menu system anyway especially if you are going to end up typing a save game name anyway.
~save 'savegamename' and done

And if Skyrim is as stable as Oblivion was (especially when heavily modded), limited saves could be a nightmare.

@kpac77: I generally don't use the console.

I agree. No offense intended to the OP but this is another example of players who like to be restricted asking the game to do it for them. If you want to play with limited saves make up that rule for yourself. Use some willpower and say, okay, I'm only going to allow me self to save in cities or at camp sites for example. It's like how some people like doing "Die and delete" characters. I personally would never want to seriously do that and if the game forced that on me I wouldn't play. :shrug:

Indifferent. As long as it's optional (maybe even part of hardcoe Mode if it's in), I don't care. I wouldn't want it to be mandatory though because I like trying stupid stuff like slaughtering towns every once in a while when I'm bored. I'd like to be able to save before doing stuff like that.

Limited saves and check point saves only work for linear games where you will cross specific checkpoints as you progress through the game.

If you don't want to save anywhere then don't, the game already autosaves for you when you enter or leave locations / sleep or wait.

Why don't you just create your own rules for limited saving areas and a checkpoint system? I mean, the game's not forcing you to save every 10 feet in a dungeon. And I would rather not have BGS waste their time developing something like this when it's so easy to limit yourself.

The real reason is nobody is inclined to make something more frustrating for themselves. It is not natural to create an emotionally negative experience for yourself. However there is some benefit to having these types of elements in game play. There are games, Eve Online and Minecraft, or Diablo 2 hardcoe Mode being some of them that have literally made me stop playing the game for weeks or months because of death. I would be emotionally distraught because I lost something I can't have back. This kind of game play can make death more meaningful and fun if you know that these consequences can exist.

The point I'm trying to make is that some of these consequences need to be hard coded to be fully realized otherwise it may never truly come to fruition and we play the game that way.

Here's an idea. Just rely on the auto-save points and never use quick-save or actual saves. That should get you the effect you're looking for.

Eh, auto saves when you leave an area are enough of a safety net for me.

It'd be fine by me if you could only save if no enemies are nearby, but any other save limitations would be silly considering how buggy Oblivion was. Saving regularly was, after all, recommended.

What I think should change are autosaves and quicksaves. Instead of one save slot allotted to each, there should be two or three slots that get cycled through.

I had to manually save in Oblivion to cycle saves, because corrupted saves were pretty common (which might have had to do with mods or my own computer). Another reason is that the game might autosave somewhere you didn't want it to, such as when you're exploring an area that triggers a cut scene or quest progression you weren't ready for, or the game might autosave just before you die when your health is too low to survive a battle. Without cycling saves, you'd have to reload to your last save that has not been saved over, which might be in the very beginning of the game in extreme cases.

You know, no one have said anything about not having auto-save on quit.
People are making too much assumptions.

And to those that think that we should just pretend and do our own hardcoe mode in our mind, here's my response:
A game is not just some plaything that you do whatever you want with. It's a designed experience. If the gameplay is such that we always can save, this is reflected in how all of the game is designed. Now, if I want to fool around and break the gameplay, this is also fun and has also historically been encouraged by mod making, but that is a separate experience.
I feel that TES is a little short on the roleplaying experience and have become more of a dungeoncrawling lootfest, made to make you feel like the king of the world. I would generally, in all games, like to see another way of thinking about how you interact with your environment. Making it possible to always alter your choices negates the effect the environment has on you, the player. The world then only becomes an atmospheric background to your grand adventure.
But I guess this isn't art, but more about designing games that gives people the right kick.

Thats what auto saving is for. Plus as another poster said never rely on only quick saves, at the end of each playing session I do I normal save, more often if I am playing for a long time.

Huh? Its one click of a button for quick saving, you don't have to waste time and go to a menu, that would svck having to do that everytime I wanted to save.

I disagree, I choose to not use fast travel when I first played OB, I could(I wound not) but could choose to only let the game auto save for me, no quick saves.

Oops, should have use multi quote!

Well, since I play every game, and especially RPGs - "Dead means dead" - it's all the same to me... I only save when I have to quit playing... Although playing "dead is dead" is sort of a curse, I just can't help it. But the rewards are huge...

P.S. I do save often however, for CTDs of course...hmmm...so to answer the poll - for me obviously - save when I wish to..

Correctly my current character in Oblivion has a problem, she can not use magic or fast travel, a mini mod on the wrist irons add silence on self as an ability and disables fast travel, yes I could just restrict myself but the wrist irons add roleplaying.
has not figured out a condition to remove them, granted I uses the craftybits mod and the character is mostly living of the land and live in a portable tent so she has little use for fast travel. The magic part is just to see if it works.

Alright, and that's a mod. If you're on PC you folks can feel free to make all the restrictive mods you want for role-playing or whatever. That's awesome. But I don't see something like that being in the full game.

Saving systems a la "hardcoe" are optional. (See signature for what "option" means when Bethesda is involved)