01 / Foundations
Save state and reset design
A merge prototype is not complete if a failed experiment cannot be reset. Imported state should be minimal, versioned, and easy to remove.
The problem to solve
Saving every temporary object creates corruption risk, while saving nothing makes the mechanic disappear after a reload and hides the real integration problem.
Write the expected behavior before changing a game directory or adding a new dependency. A precise failure statement helps you choose a smaller test and prevents a tool from becoming a collection of unrelated experiments.
A practical method
Separate base-game saves from imported state, version the imported data, back up before schema changes, and define what happens when an older save is opened.
Keep the base loop, input contract, and save boundary visible. Use original placeholders and a reversible local test whenever the workflow touches game files or generated assets.
How to verify the result
Run fresh save, successful save, failed interaction, old save, and restore tests. Keep the output of each run in a short log.
Record the engine or tool version, the exact steps, the observed result, and the recovery path. A problem article is useful when another reader can reproduce the check without guessing what changed.
101 / Quick answers
Common Save state and reset design questions
001What should be persisted first?+
Persist only the imported state needed to prove the loop: one objective, one reward, and the minimum world change.
002What should the first test include?+
One controlled scenario, one expected result, and one reset or restore path. Expand only after that scenario is repeatable.
003What should I document?+
Document the base game or tool version, required ownership, files changed, expected output, and the safe way to undo the experiment.
004What should I avoid?+
Avoid distributing proprietary files, bypassing ownership or anti-cheat checks, and making irreversible changes before a backup and a small test exist.
FAQ
FAQ
What should be persisted first?+
Persist only the imported state needed to prove the loop: one objective, one reward, and the minimum world change.
Can I solve this with a larger prompt?+
Usually not. A smaller prompt tied to one reproducible failure produces a more useful implementation and a clearer review.
Where can I continue?+
Continue with scope a vertical slice or engine compatibility or universal modder verification and compare the linked workflow before expanding scope.
Continue through the index
Related problem sections