The video game developer Joshua E. Sawyer was a designer on several major role-playing games of the 2000s and 2010s. He led Fallout: New Vegas, which many see as a milestone in the RPG genre. But now he says: Manual save games were a mistake; they are like poison.
What has Josh Sawyer done for big role-playing games? The 48-year-old has an impressive career in the gaming industry, especially in RPGs:
- He was involved in classic RPGs from the world of Dungeons and Dragons in the 2000s: such as Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale 2, and Neverwinter Nights 2.
- In 2010, he was the head of Fallout: New Vegas and its DLCs, which many fans regard as a milestone of the genre and “the better Fallout.” It has a Metacritic score of 84%.
- From 2015, he worked on Pillars of Eternity, which are two popular role-playing games that hark back to the golden days, before Baldur’s Gate 3 sparked renewed hype for this form of isometric RPG.
The Pillars of Eternity series is considered a tribute to the classics:
“Manual save states were a mistake”
He is critical of this feature: In a tweet from September 18, Sawyer explains:
“Manual save games were a mistake. They are like the Chicken McNuggets of gaming: they provide convenience, but they are bad for you and poison your gaming spirit.”
How is this being discussed? Some players reject the idea. They say:
“I like to save at any time. Then I can go and do things – and I don’t have to replay the whole chapter.”
“I will cheat with saves at every boss – and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
The YouTuber FranklyGaming agrees with Sawyer and says: The honor mode in Baldur’s Gate 3 showed him how games are without manual saves: Every single decision becomes much more significant. Manual saving and “save scumming” ruin decisions in games.
“Some just can’t play without manual save games”
What do other game developers say? The boss of Dishonored says:
I don’t disagree, but let players decide how they want to play. Some just can’t play without manual save games.
Freedom and frustration vs. Every decision matters
What’s behind this: This is an ongoing debate.
When you can save freely, it removes the risk from role-playing and strategy games. You can take “risky paths,” and if it goes wrong, you just reload and try again until it works. This is often justified by saying: “Even Jesus saved,” in reference to the fact that he resurrected from the dead.
There is also “save scumming.” This way, you can cheat a game mechanic by doing something that has only a very low chance of success, but you reload the game state until it finally works. You roll until the result suits you. This is essentially cheating.
This indeed removes the risk and enjoyment from decisions, but it also protects players from frustration that many cannot handle. Because many players want to play a game “perfectly” and achieve the optimal outcome. If they feel like they have missed or messed up a situation, they find it hard to cope. Such players are called “completionists.”
This is the alternative: The alternative to “manual saving” is automatic saving. If there is only one save file that gets overwritten again and again, it is referred to as “ironman mode.” This is an option that many games offer today.
From a game designer’s perspective, who wants players to immerse themselves deeply in a game and take every decision seriously, Sawyer’s view is certainly understandable.
An example of particularly egregious save scumming has been described on MeinMMO in an article about Civilization 6, for which I would like to sincerely apologize: Steam: I am obsessed with achieving the perfect start in Civilization 6 and have been loading the same game state for 2 years.
