Is this game balanced around not quicksaving?

[Chocos Ramabotti]

Lately I've became aware of this game, I like the premise and open structure of the missions, it looks like it can have a lot of tension.
Unfortunately there is one gripe I have with most of old PC games it's that they are designed around savescumming.
I've played some old and modern games who basically ruined these games to me, back in the day I didn't mind but as I grew older I became more skeptical about the save and load limitless approach, it kills all the tension I would expect from a stealth game, "live with your consequences" but that is when a lot of unfair and unepected things can happen, what is when a mission takes way too long, to not quicksave at all? Are there any indicators for quicksaves.
I don't know and that's why I ask, i need some guidance, just tellming "save when you feel like" doesn't work in this case I could simply save at every ocassion, people want to optimize their gameplay and quicksaving is just the most logical approach to minimize risk. Also it can be hard to control yourself not using on very fierce moments where satisfaction and frustration are right next to each other?

Any sugesstions for a valid way to play the game how I feel the tension of this game without having to rely on saving? Are there any indicators that I could as a rule "save after every cleared objective" for example?
I simply need rules and restrictions, without them I can't have fun.

I also would be open to mod suggestions, as long they keep the core game intact.

[BP]

I quicksaved from time to time whenever I was about to make a ballsy play.

For your question with "are there any indicators to when to quick save?" No, there aren't. If they wanted go give you a hint, they would of quick saved for you.

In the earlier levels, getting spotted is not a problem, as your only problem is the only alerted guard.
But as you continue onto later levels, alarms are added, and I always quickload after hearing it go off.
So it is recommended to quick save before entering into a new room with guards. If you don't feel confident in your thiefing.

I like to save after every objective.

For mods OOOOH YEAH I've been waiting to talk about this...

CoSaS is a hidden jem!

http://cosas.ttlg.com/
Start with Meeting at the Inn, then play Mission X. (Thief 2 needed)

If you want more mods, Thief The Circle is where I go.
http://www.thief-thecircle.com/

[Sikobae]

I'd rather take manual saves over checkpoint systems. One cheap shot against you and the game becomes a 10-20 minute trial-and-error grindfest.

If it means that much to you, make a perma-save at the start of each mission and do "no save" runs.

[Chocos Ramabotti]

Originally posted by Sikobae:

I'd rather take manual saves over checkpoint systems. One cheap shot against you and the game becomes a 10-20 minute trial-and-error grindfest.

If it means that much to you, make a perma-save at the start of each mission and do "no save" runs.

That would be too punishing.

[Sіlncr]

I’d reccomend saving only in certain conditions:
1. New level, have to save bought items and previous level completion
2. Have to parkour, or anything involving rope arrow and climbing down ledders
3. Creature encounter that has never been before encountered
4. Gameplay interrupted by real life ONLY if flow is lost.
5. Time to finish playing, yet level is not completed
6. Traps? Only in very difficult ones. Rather not to teach yourself being careful.

Creatures and parkour can be really unfair. No more frustrations of falls and wrong animation locks. Everything else is tense gameplay. There’s a special charm in completing everything without knowing detailed layot beforehand, the priceless grace!

[lionhart]

It really depends on how familiar you are with the mission levels. When you are first learning the game there is a very high probability that you will get lost and accidentally run into a guard or a dead end, since the level designs are quite complex and maze-like compared to many modern games.

However once you have played through the game once or twice and learned your way around the levels, it is very possible to complete an entire mission without saving or reloading even once.

[Andy [null]]

I've personally become familiar enough with Thief that I can typically make it through most missions without quicksaves, but for someone new to the series, dying to lethal fall damage and having to start over is just masochistic. Saving after every objective works well in some missions, but isn't all that helpful in missions like The Sword, which is lengthy and doesn't have evenly-spaced objectives. I really like the way Hitman: Blood Money does save states.
You can save at any point in that game, but your saves are limited. Thief doesn't have anything built-in to support this, but you can impose this restriction on yourself. I'd say 5 quicksaves per mission is enough to reduce the sting of inconsistent AI and treacherous platforming while still preserving the tension of a stealth game. That said, I'd recommend 10 saves for Thieves' Guild, Mage Towers, and Sabotage at Soulforge.

[junkme100]

Ive had the exact same thoughts. So much of my arsenal never gets used. I dont really have to be that smart even using the difficulty mod since if I die I just reload to where was last convenient. I agree with the other poster. Doing a self imposed survival for each level should keep tensions high and is what I plan on doing. Restarting the entire game when you die is masochistic. No way Im gonna do that.

[Zombits]

I only used quicksave in case of major bug or crash. relaoding every time you make a mistake would kill immersion. I prefer to actually use those health cures and flash bombs to recover.

doing survival but not on first playthrough , like the other guy said

[Grimm Carrolls]

Going crazy over this sort of "honourable" playstyle will inevitably lead to you not enjoying games. Most games are not well-balanced. Play the ones that are if you want to prove something to yourself.

That being said, quick saves have always been part of immersive sim games - they're games about experimentation, not about ironman modes. Might be frustrating, but you're simply looking for an experience that these games have never offered. Not to mention, you can die pretty easy by accident in Thief. I don't believe a solid 30 mins of progress should be ruined by slipping off the edge of a balcony.

[Chocos Ramabotti]

Originally posted by Grimm Carrolls:

Going crazy over this sort of "honourable" playstyle will inevitably lead to you not enjoying games. Most games are not well-balanced. Play the ones that are if you want to prove something to yourself.

That being said, quick saves have always been part of immersive sim games - they're games about experimentation, not about ironman modes. Might be frustrating, but you're simply looking for an experience that these games have never offered. Not to mention, you can die pretty easy by accident in Thief. I don't believe a solid 30 mins of progress should be ruined by slipping off the edge of a balcony.

You're right and that's probably the reason why I still haven't tried it out so far, it's just not for me along, to a lot other classic pc games, better concentrate on titles who aren't designed like this. But already Tomb Raider 1 & 3 show that a punishing game with a clever save system is possible I still think it's less an "immersive sims" thing and more an pc movement matter.

[Grimm Carrolls]

Originally posted by Chocos Ramabotti:

Originally posted by Grimm Carrolls:

Going crazy over this sort of "honourable" playstyle will inevitably lead to you not enjoying games. Most games are not well-balanced. Play the ones that are if you want to prove something to yourself.

That being said, quick saves have always been part of immersive sim games - they're games about experimentation, not about ironman modes. Might be frustrating, but you're simply looking for an experience that these games have never offered. Not to mention, you can die pretty easy by accident in Thief. I don't believe a solid 30 mins of progress should be ruined by slipping off the edge of a balcony.

You're right and that's probably the reason why I still haven't tried it out so far, it's just not for me along, to a lot other classic pc games, better concentrate on titles who aren't designed like this. But already Tomb Raider 1 & 3 show that a punishing game with a clever save system is possible I still think it's less an "immersive sims" thing and more an pc movement matter.

Nobody said it wasn't possible, all I'm saying is it isn't really necessary nor is it ever really a goal for many games. What's necessary for any game is that it's fun. A lot of games that allow save scumming are fun, Thief is one of them for me.
I love classic PS1/2 games and their manual saves giving failure a consequence - they're just not required to have a good time. That's kinda evidenced by the fact that they're not a thing anymore.

[Chocos Ramabotti]

Originally posted by Grimm Carrolls:

Originally posted by Chocos Ramabotti:

You're right and that's probably the reason why I still haven't tried it out so far, it's just not for me along, to a lot other classic pc games, better concentrate on titles who aren't designed like this. But already Tomb Raider 1 & 3 show that a punishing game with a clever save system is possible I still think it's less an "immersive sims" thing and more an pc movement matter.

Nobody said it wasn't possible, all I'm saying is it isn't really necessary nor is it ever really a goal for many games. What's necessary for any game is that it's fun. A lot of games that allow save scumming are fun, Thief is one of them for me.
I love classic PS1/2 games and their manual saves giving failure a consequence - they're just not required to have a good time. That's kinda evidenced by the fact that they're not a thing anymore.

Wdym "manual saves"? That's not the trait that differs them, on PC you save manually too, the thing is that saving progress is restricted to the location or to the amount of times. It's treated as a ressource. I have no problem with automatic saves or "checkpoints", when they are able to keep the consequence.

Since Thief is not only an immersive sim but an stealth game as well I would expect some kind of consequence. I'm supposed to feel like a thief but in that fashion I rather feel like a time wizard.

I would say limitless manual saving is outdated as well, Elden Ring for example has a way more modern approach to conceal consequences but progress as well. It just takes out the failure condition in a classical way. The game saves everytime automatically so you never have to manage your own save file and interupt the game flow, in exchange the failstate has been "removed". You no longer have to load an old save file on defeat you just become set back to the last point of grace.

I think a truly good an modern immersive sim should be able to find its own "failstate" that allows for experimentation but also captures the tension which an stealth game should actually provide. Look at Death Stranded, it integrated an similiar system that is tied to the narrative and there you don't have to bother with save files at all.

What you deem as fun highly differentiates from individual to individual, you play Thief because you have fun playing around with the tools the game provides.
But I have fun when I HAVE TO utilize these tools to conquer the many challenges a thief would have to face and in order to become challenged I need some setback, some punishment for failure. J
ust reloading before getting caught is the equivalent to save and load between every jump in an plattformer, nothing can be felt, when nothing can be lost or won. It feels meaningless, possibilities feel meaningless when you can't carve your own way through the covert restrictions, both are mandatory sides of the same coin, it whats splits "videogames" from "toys" to me.

tl:dr the approach that Thief uses is outdated as well I think having to manage your own save files, interrupting the game flow, shouldn't be the job of the player anymore and at least a possibility to feel consequences should be an important cornerstone for stealth games, many have managed in the past. I don't blame Thief since it's an old game, but nowadays we should know better.

[Grimm Carrolls]

Originally posted by Chocos Ramabotti:

Wdym "manual saves"? That's not the trait that differs them, on PC you save manually too, the thing is that saving progress is restricted to the location or to the amount of times. It's treated as a ressource. I have no problem with automatic saves or "checkpoints", when they are able to keep the consequence.

Since Thief is not only an immersive sim but an stealth game as well I would expect some kind of consequence. I'm supposed to feel like a thief but in that fashion I rather feel like a time wizard.

I would say limitless manual saving is outdated as well, Elden Ring for example has a way more modern approach to conceal consequences but progress as well. It just takes out the failure condition in a classical way. The game saves everytime automatically so you never have to manage your own save file and interupt the game flow, in exchange the failstate has been "removed". You no longer have to load an old save file on defeat you just become set back to the last point of grace.

I think a truly good an modern immersive sim should be able to find its own "failstate" that allows for experimentation but also captures the tension which an stealth game should actually provide. Look at Death Stranded, it integrated an similiar system that is tied to the narrative and there you don't have to bother with save files at all.

What you deem as fun highly differentiates from individual to individual, you play Thief because you have fun playing around with the tools the game provides.
But I have fun when I HAVE TO utilize these tools to conquer the many challenges a thief would have to face and in order to become challenged I need some setback, some punishment for failure. J
ust reloading before getting caught is the equivalent to save and load between every jump in an plattformer, nothing can be felt, when nothing can be lost or won. It feels meaningless, possibilities feel meaningless when you can't carve your own way through the covert restrictions, both are mandatory sides of the same coin, it whats splits "videogames" from "toys" to me.

tl:dr the approach that Thief uses is outdated as well I think having to manage your own save files, interrupting the game flow, shouldn't be the job of the player anymore and at least a possibility to feel consequences should be an important cornerstone for stealth games, many have managed in the past. I don't blame Thief since it's an old game, but nowadays we should know better.

Yeah, I know you're like a time wizard in Immersive Sims. That's was the point back in the day, to explore the deep mechanics that only PC games had access to. Console Games didn't come close to PC's technical prowess back then, so it had to find ways to make their barebones systems feel good - such as adding a rewarding feeling by managing how often you save. PC games never needed this.

Point is, your consequential save preference is only due to taste, not due to the some objective fact. If Thief had mechanics that you thought were amazing (and they def were in 1998)", you would give the save system a pass. It's not equivalent to a platformer, because in a platformer success is the goal. In Immersive Sims, exploration of mechanics is the goal. People don't love Thief because they can knock out guards, they love Thief because of the intricate level design that was out of this world back then.

Thief wouldn't have been improved back in 1998 with your save preferences, and I'm not sure it would even today tbh. If anything, adding consequence would de-incentive being inventive and maybe a bit reckless for fun in exchange for playing slow and laborious, only to make one small mistake and lose an hour of progress. That sounds lame and shortsighted to me.

I also don't really get what you're trying to say by acknowledging that Thief is an old game, but still demanding better anyway. You admitted it was old, so... why?

[Chocos Ramabotti]

Originally posted by Grimm Carrolls:

Yeah, I know you're like a time wizard in Immersive Sims. That's was the point back in the day, to explore the deep mechanics that only PC games had access to. Console Games didn't come close to PC's technical prowess back then, so it had to find ways to make their barebones systems feel good - such as adding a rewarding feeling by managing how often you save. PC games never needed this.

That's not true, at the time Thief was released, consoles had an huge advantage over pcs and everyone knew that.

Hard to imagine nowadays, but at this point pcs didn't had the capacity to handle their operating system and the game engine at the same time drawing from the potential of their specs. So consoles had an huge edge that was especially prevalent to that time, at an era were consoles were less like pcs

Consoles were already at the point were it was possible to save everywhere. Just take Tomb Raider 2 as an example, for Tomb Raider 3 they limited the save system to "save crystals" as a ressource, but saving was still possible at any time. They removed the ressource for the PC port.
So no, it had nothing to do with technical restrictions, simply PC players were accustomed to quicksaves, due to a large amount of (point & click) adventure games (yes that's also hard to believe nowadays) they were deemed as an "casual" market, different games, for different strokes. So the games were adjusted to suit a more casual orientated audience.

The result of Thief is not an "evolution" It just follows a trend to that time. As much as checkpoints have become a trend during the 7th console generation. (even for pc games)

Thief wouldn't have been improved back in 1998 with your save preferences, and I'm not sure it would even today tbh. If anything, adding consequence would de-incentive being inventive and maybe a bit reckless for fun in exchange for playing slow and laborious, only to make one small mistake and lose an hour of progress. That sounds lame and shortsighted to me.

I'm not talking about losing an hour of progress, just look at other stealth games like Metal Gear Solid or Tenchu, they were exciting games were you could experiment and that still punish you appropriately for mistakes. Even losing just a minute can be punishing enough, important is that the punishment itself is consequential.
Games like Hitman for example also restrict saves depending on your difficulty setting, although being an immersive sim with countless possibilities.
If it can work in Hitman, why not in Thief?

I don't believe there is any kind of "goal" genrewise, plattformers aren't reliant on success overall, otherwise many would have ditched all the overly difficult plattformers back then. Otherwise Kirby wouldn't become so big although it focusses on player expression. Sonic the Hedgehog focussed on exploration as well.
I could go on and on with examples.

[Grimm Carrolls]

Originally posted by Chocos Ramabotti:

Originally posted by Grimm Carrolls:

Yeah, I know you're like a time wizard in Immersive Sims. That's was the point back in the day, to explore the deep mechanics that only PC games had access to. Console Games didn't come close to PC's technical prowess back then, so it had to find ways to make their barebones systems feel good - such as adding a rewarding feeling by managing how often you save. PC games never needed this.

That's not true, at the time Thief was released, consoles had an huge advantage over pcs and everyone knew that.

Hard to imagine nowadays, but at this point pcs didn't had the capacity to handle their operating system and the game engine at the same time drawing from the potential of their specs. So consoles had an huge edge that was especially prevalent to that time, at an era were consoles were less like pcs

Consoles were already at the point were it was possible to save everywhere. Just take Tomb Raider 2 as an example, for Tomb Raider 3 they limited the save system to "save crystals" as a ressource, but saving was still possible at any time. They removed the ressource for the PC port.
So no, it had nothing to do with technical restrictions, simply PC players were accustomed to quicksaves, due to a large amount of (point & click) adventure games (yes that's also hard to believe nowadays) they were deemed as an "casual" market, different games, for different strokes. So the games were adjusted to suit a more casual orientated audience.

The result of Thief is not an "evolution" It just follows a trend to that time. As much as checkpoints have become a trend during the 7th console generation. (even for pc games)

Thief wouldn't have been improved back in 1998 with your save preferences, and I'm not sure it would even today tbh. If anything, adding consequence would de-incentive being inventive and maybe a bit reckless for fun in exchange for playing slow and laborious, only to make one small mistake and lose an hour of progress. That sounds lame and shortsighted to me.

I'm not talking about losing an hour of progress, just look at other stealth games like Metal Gear Solid or Tenchu, they were exciting games were you could experiment and that still punish you appropriately for mistakes. Even losing just a minute can be punishing enough, important is that the punishment itself is consequential.
Games like Hitman for example also restrict saves depending on your difficulty setting, although being an immersive sim with countless possibilities.
If it can work in Hitman, why not in Thief?

I don't believe there is any kind of "goal" genrewise, plattformers aren't reliant on success overall, otherwise many would have ditched all the overly difficult plattformers back then. Otherwise Kirby wouldn't become so big although it focusses on player expression. Sonic the Hedgehog focussed on exploration as well.
I could go on and on with examples.

Sounds to me like your biggest problem is your lack of intelligence.