In recent years as we all know technology has progressed, 16 bit became 32 bit, which became 64 bit, which became... okay we kinda blew off the whole "bit" thing around that point but you see my point, technology has advanced, we have handhelds with more power that the PS1 on the market right now and Nintendo is working on a 3d handheld that just might be as powerful as a Gamecube.
So why do we still see save points in video games?
You might remember (but not likely) that some months ago
I decided to play reviewer for a day and review Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echos of Time for the DS, a Game I generaly ripped a shiny new asshole.
You see that game had one of the worst save systems in the history of DS games, you could save in town, or before the boss, that was about it. That opened it self up to the situation where I would of had to stop played upwards of 30 minutes before I should of had to. because that was the span of time a typical dungeon would take.
You look on the flip-side of this coin and you have "The World ends with you" also for the DS which did feature a "save anywhere" feature and was a far better game for it, or at least I wasan't adding wherever or not I could make it to the next save point or not before running out of time or battery into my gameplay strategy.
So I guess the real question I just spent 4 paragraphs and an extra line trying to reach is "Do save points still have a place in video games"
Well believe it or not, they just might.
A couple games that did save points well enough, or at least well enough that I didn't really think about them was "Dead Space" which I played on the PC, And "No More heroes" for the Wii, In the case of Dead Space, the save points were generally spaced out very well, sometimes a bit too well and eliminated a bit of the fear of my violent and messy death, but they weren't super obvious, just walk up to a small panel on the wall with a camera and BAM, your progress is saved. No more Heroes on the other hand spaced them out in a simular fashion to Echo's of time, and yet even then, didn't really seem to mind it or care, more than likely because it was on a console, the missions didn't take 30 to 45 minutes, and your save point was a toilet.
Maybe that was the trick to making the save point work in these two cases was to make them part of the environment, it's not like your typical JRPG bullshit where the save points are some glowly crystals, cute fuzzy animal with a note pad, or jail-bait school girl tied to a post (I made that last one up) so it's more obvious and maybe even immersion breaking to have something obvious as a save-point.
But even if they fit all so huggy well into the environment, does this relic of ancient NES days still have a place in gaming? would have Dead-space been better suited for just being able to smash f5? Ultimately that's your decision, but like I said in the Title, to me at least, save points are ultimately bullshit.
Akitoscorpio's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Sorry, I got off topic and didn't use commas. Fapped =]
The Saboteur was pretty good about this except close to the end. When you save it doesn't save mission progress and near the end there is a string of story missions that were all interconnected that I had to keep plowing through just so I could save.
Instead, I think a mix of save points and checkpoints are the solution. Metroid Prime 3 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii epitomize this - there are points at which you can save the game, but also points you'll cross that you can restart from if you fail.
If you crossed into what was clearly going to be a boss fight or miniboss in Metroid Prime 3, the cutscene leading in was a sort of invisible checkpoint. If you failed from that point, you could continue and start that fight again. If some casual baddie or phazon corruption got you, then you just picked up from your normal save.
So the game didn't punish you for failure in a fight against a boss, but it did if you died horribly in some stupid way.
Other games benefit from having gamesaves... especially where gamesaves almost become part of the game - where you can go back, do something over again to do it differently or better or where saving at certain points and remembering to do your saves is just part of the game and leads to those "crap, I didn't know I'd get killed around this corner and I forgot to do a gamesave and now have to do that other fight over again" moments.
I do believe that games should have very generous save systems though - either a save anywhere or auto save system. It's the very rare game that can actually benefit from a "save points are every hour of gameplay" because people simply have lives to live and may not be able to schedule their gameplay session around the sparse save points in a game - and most of us hate re-playing the entire same level we just played because we never made it to the save point.
It is an interesting topic to talk about, because, video games nowadays, do have the technoligy to just save anywhere. So I find it interesting that a lot of games don't use this method. If saving your game is a clever part of the environment, like you mentioned, then its just cool. In GTA and RDR, you go to bed to save, which is cool, it humanizes your character a bit more, but its canceled out by the fact they never eat...anyways.
If theres anything I noticed, like you mentioned, its mostly JRPGs where this seems to still exist. As if its almost a necessity, like the fact that most of them are still turned based. They don't change and wise up, cause their audience hasn't changed. But thats something else entirely.
@Protagonist
Its a little extreme saying "save anywhere" system is for wimps. And I don't honestly believe anyone who just "saves anywhere" is trying to "exploit" the system. I think "back to start" works in some games, like Mario or more arcade type games, where its a given and an understood. But in something bigger like in Mass Effect, GTA, and other more open world games, its just a hassle to have to have to "go back to start". That would be awfull in Mass Effect! I relied too much on the auto save in that game, and regreted it heavily. I would have stopped playing that game if I had no choice but to rely on auto save. Thats why I'm glad to see the "save anywhere" system come up in games.
Save Anywhere is easy to think of like some emulator save-state hotkeys, which you can abuse even to the point of using them to weave through bullet hell shmups. Didn't take a corner perfectly in the gran prix? Reload! They're the tool of casuals and cheaters.
On the other hand that doesn't mean frequent saves can't be hardcore. Demon's Souls was an almost-perfect example of save anywhere. It saved quietly without telling you, every time you picked something up, dropped an item, changed areas... anything. It saved so often you had to go to extremes to avoid committing even a minor mistake - like using up all your rare stones upgrading the wrong weapon - to eternity. If you died... the game cheerfully saved that too and sent your ass back to the start of the level as a ghost. Frequent saves were your enemy if anything. At least the game didn't delete your save after you loaded it and make you roll a new character when you died like Rogue and company.
However, if Fallout 3 didn't have a save anywhere system I don't think I would have ever finished it. It's way to vast and expansive to have any kind of limited save system.