Is limited saves a good way to make a horror game scarier?

They don't really make the game scarier, but they make you think twice about excessive saving now that it's a resource, and gamble with how long you can go before your next one.
Of course, it can very easily make the game more of a chore for people who die a lot, increasing the amount of times they might need to replay the same parts.
It really comes down to how well designed the game is around them, and how not shit the player is

Personally, I liked how the original RE Trilogy did limited saves, although as pointed out, as long as you aren't an idiot with saving, you'll almost always have way more than you need.

hmm interesting

has any game ever done this?

>Saving in a Resident Evil game from the 90's
Why, how.
The game gives you almost unlimited ammo.

Claire's game gives you bow and grenades, your an unstoppable group killer.

Yes,It's a harsh way to teach the player to be careful and not waste every item.
but I don't remember having any issues on the classic games besides 1 when I first try them

Scary, I don't know.
I played REmake the first time a year or two ago, in the first couple of hours or so I ended up running out of ammo. If anything I stopped being scared at that point because I assumed I was going to die, so I just ran around knifing things and was surprised when it worked.

Yes but you have to know from the get-go how many you have to use, and have that number be relatively small, maybe 10.

Horror is all about the story, not about being afraid to proceed.

You can find around 20 ribbons in RE2

Exactly. That number is way too high for there to be any real tension.

yes
wha?

So you're saying a game can be "scary" even if there's no fail state?

Attached: 979799876997186999.png (170x185, 64.48K)

Only a good idea if it's a resource managing survival horror game. In which case, yes it's a good thing so long as the devs aren't TOO stingy. It's just another resource, and forces you to think deeper in to which other resources you're okay with using up before you save again.

But no, they don't make games "scarier" imo, but resource management in general certainly ups the tension.

>running out of ink ribbons
how?

Yes? Why would a fail state be required

>bro why are you saving what do you mean you don’t know where all the enemies and items are on your first playthrough
Really user?

It is if you equate stress to horror.
I personally don't. Knowing that you could lose 3 hours of progress because you can't find anymore ink ribbons is just frustrating and annoying.

Ultimately it's a moot point though. The vast majority of games with a limited save system give you more than enough saves anyway, so they might as well not even be there in the first place.

Bro, if I can never die or lose progress why the fuck would I be playing that? It's not a fucking game, just an interactive movie.

This is such a consistant problem with zoomers and is indicitive of the decline of videogame design in general. And I don't even blame you for it, because these days you're taught to just shoot and destroy everythig in your path without consequence.

RE games (the good ones) are about picking and choosing your fights, not dropping everything that moves. Crimson Heads were added to REmake to reinforce this idea. Almost every single time someone has a problem with them, it's because they've been playing it like some gungho action hero and not caring about trying to play the game how it's designed.

Because the moment you realize the horrific environment/thing won't kill you the game turns into a boring trek from one checkpoint to the next. Fail states are necessary for games to engage the player.

>Why would a fail state be required
for it to be a game

modern gamers can't handle limited saves, even the indie throwback games have to offer unlimited saves for the zoomers

Animal Crossing has zero fail states and still manages to be a game.

If it's executed right yes.
In the original RE2 ink ribbons are plentiful and might as well not even exist.

I mean, it’s not like they give you all the ink ribbons at the very start of the game. It’s perfectly possible to save yourself into a tough situation if you’re not managing your ribbons well from the getgo.

found the cheater
the game literally teaches you in the first few minutes that guns are nearly useless
...maybe, take a hint next time?

>...maybe, take a hint next time?
No

Not true at all, you can fail events/character quests/forget to tend to your plants/forget to sell your turnips. A fail state doesn't mean the game has to force you to stop playing.

That reminds me, why the fuck did REmake 3 not have ink ribbons? REmake 2 had ink ribbons in hardcore mode, so I was expecting them in REmake 3 Inferno mode too, but all they did was remove the autosave system. You can still make unlimited manual saves provided you weren't trying to get an S rank.
I was also disappointed that Daymare 1998 didn't have limited saves. It's basically a poor man's RE2 yet they have extremely generous auto checkpoints. Manual saves aren't even required.

>In the original RE2 ink ribbons are plentiful and might as well not even exist.
All RE games were like this. There was enough for 20+ and in some cases 30+ saves, even REmake 2 'Hardcore' mode had almost 30 ink ribbons scattered.

Personally I play RE games these days without saves because it makes it more thrilling and the games are short enough to not get disheartened over dying to stuff.