be honest, /v/. do you savescum?

File: quake guy pixely.png (3KB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 600x550px

like a motherfucker

I don't know what that means, but yeah, probably.

Yes
I'm a severe save scummer in games that allow it

>>387330245
Depends on the game. Games like shitrim or oblivion are fucking stupid to play otherwise.

I'm literally Shulk.

Depends on the game. Admittedly, it is kind of a bad habit since I am paranoid of game saves corrupting (Which has saved my ass multiple times when it does strike). I am also not a huge fan of losing a lot of time in a game.

Only when the game is broken and unfair

File: feels_diddly_neighborino.jpg (129KB, 1239x669px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1239x669px

Only in XCOM

>>387330245
Yes

Some games, e.g. Half Life, Max Payne, pretty much expect you too. These are games where there is no "slow and steady" way to play the game, spawn ambushes from multiple directions are common, you can go from full health to almost dead in a second and there is a fixed number of health packs in the game.

Unless these games were made for clairvoyants it's what you are supposed to do.

I am glad I am not alone in doing this. Part of me feels guilty for doing it, but part of me also feels like taking advantage of anything the game offers me.

>>387330305
>Playing Quake Arcane Dimensions
>enjoying the stage a lot
>lose 15 to 20 minutes of progress because I don't want to stop and save

Real talk though, fuck dying and restarting from the start of a level in Quake or Doom, it took me a solid hour to beat a stage in Arcane Dimensions, I ain't replaying the whole thing every time I die.

Self-imposed restrictions are for fucking faggots. If the game doesn't have a limited save system then it's the game's own fault when save scumming makes it a less exciting experience.

Dark Souls literally made it's name off of removing quick save and yet other developers are barely catching on to the concept.

>>387330923
>Real talk though,
kill yourself

>>387330923
press f5 faggot

Do you retards not know what savescumming means? it's not "saving before a mob" you retards, it's taking advantage and breaking a game with saves on something like an emulator or using glitches or hacks or mods to save when you otherwise shouldn't be able to.

>>387330245
Guilty of savescumming in XCOM and some games with choices (like when I found out breaking Djikstra's leg blocks you out of a very important quest in Witcher 3)

>>387330245
only in pokemon
not going to waste my masterball on some stupid legendaries

>>387331124
brb playing a SL1 no Bonfire run in DS1

>>387331219
no mate, savescumming is when you save after every little encounter and reload if you lose hp in the next one

>>387330245
Everytime.

>>387330245
Yes, but only when there is shit RNG.

>>387330245
Save scumming in an emulator is practically cheating, but save scumming in game that allows it (like skyrim or fallout) is okay in my book.

File: 1497456035557.png (683KB, 885x813px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 885x813px

I play XCOM:EW on ironman but alt+f4 whenever some bullshit happens, since it autosaves when the aliens end their turn as long as you do it right away it won't corrupt your 1 save.
It is like a little compromise between wanting to feel skilled vs not being able to deal with losing people

>>387331219
This. An example would be quicksaving after a boss uses a hard-to-dodge that you successfully dodged. Then saving again on following dodges.

>>387330245
Never. I'm not a shitter.

>>387331124
>Dark Souls literally made it's name off of removing quick save and yet other developers are barely catching on to the concept.

Dark Souls did not make it's name off removing quick saves, quick saves have never even really been a thing on consoles. What's different about Dark Souls is that it is way more zealous about it's autosaving than the usual console game. Usually autosaves happen after major action sequences, story sequences, etc., but in Dark Souls the autosaves are constantly in the background pretty much every 10 or 20 seconds. There's no going back in Dark Souls but there's no going back in a lot console games, albeit not quite to the same degree. It's not really all THAT special.

>>387330245
*F5*

No [lie]

File: no savescumming.jpg (179KB, 1198x624px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1198x624px

>>387331915
[PERSUASION FAILED]

>>387331219
>>387331324
There's a thin line between save scumming and being fairly liberal with your saves. You can pretty much make any game trivial with save abuse though, when it comes to shooters I typically tend to do it after a handful of encounters or before a very obvious trap or arena fight.

File: airplane_robert_hays_ted_striker_sweating_profusely.jpg (90KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 853x480px

Yes, to a degree. A decision that makes the game virtually unplayable going forward (losing a vital item/resource), or a favourite character in a management game dying (ie: ksp, xcom, rimworld...), will cause me to reload.

Not getting the desired effect (failed % to hit, wrong speech option) i just keep pushing forward and hope for the best

I only really savescummed in the first max payne, that game could be hard as balls at some points.