Ever since the inclusion of the NES cartridge battery, we've had a way to save our progress, giving ourselves a little break from the constant struggle to beat a game in one sitting. It was a truly life-changing invention, really -- allowing for the creation of much longer games, and sparing us the need to resort to passcodes.
Nowadays, we've got a myriad of saving structures, from those found in the overly sparse Dead Rising to the quick-saves in most PC games -- Half-Life, for example -- accessible at any point in time. The thing that's changed most with the advent of the save structure? It's in how we play the game.
The ability to save one's spot in a game drastically affects a gamer's psyche. There's a fear of being too far from a save point for too long -- because, God forbid, an enemy kills you, destroying two hours' worth of progress. It can be utterly soul-crushing, and builds up this certain paranoia -- after all, going through the same thing over again, perhaps
one room later, is not something worth dealing with.
Running through Symphony of the Night, or any Castlevania game for that matter, I will always dash through an area to where a save point might be, based on how each area is designed. I really don't need to, but I've had way too many experiences where I run into a room, and then suddenly get mobbed by a group of enemies, losing a ton of health, and the thought that the save point might all along have been just beyond where I was heading is frustrating to no end.
Castlevania, for how it's laid out, has an appropriate number of save points. Going to one extreme is the save structure of Dead Rising. Because there are only a select few areas where you can save, it creates this cycle of player behavior that alternates between being incredibly brash and utterly scared. After saving and stocking up on health, it's all good if you go charging through a crowd of zombies, or sneak up on some black ops and cut them down -- you've got the healing smoothies to replenish that damage. Once that's all gone, though, it becomes a desparate search for a vehicle, an alternate route, or some way to get back to a save point and make everything all better.
Then, there's the big daddy of saving: Resident Evil. A game that only gives you a limited number of saves throughout the game, depending on how many ribbons you can find for the typewriter. This mechanic sharply heightens the sensation of fear and helplessness within the game, making you wonder what's behind every door -- and whether or not it's going to kill you instantly. The state of emotion this save system produces is perfect for this game, and while it made the Resident Evil games that much harder, it also created a more worthwhile and immersive experience.
The other extreme from Dead Rising and Resident Evil's save systems are quick-saves. I've noticed an utter fear cultivated by the game and this sort of system. Let's take my roommate, for example. He recently beat Half-Life on the PS2, but not until he put me through the torture of watching him play. Whenever he completed a minor task, or cleared a room, or did just about anything, he would quick-save. It's understandable, but when you take two points of damage and then quick-load because, "I shouldn't have taken that," it gets to be a bit extreme. You can understand why I was clawing my eyes out at this, right?
It allowed me to play on his sense of fear, though. He had gone through a room, took a fair amount of damage (he went from 100HP to 86HP), and thought he could do better. He gets out with 85HP, but didn't remember what his health was before. "Oh, you actually took more damage that time," I'd casually introject -- so, he quick-loads, at which point I add, "It was only a point more, you realize." I get cursed out quite a bit as he proceeds to try the room again, and spends the next 15 minutes dying.
Certainly he's an extreme (and feel free to make fun of him, he reads the site), but the quick-save becomes a safety net, where the player feels as though there's very little impact on the things they do, because they can easily try again later with no real penalties to them. A game like Half-Life is certainly an exception, since it's going for a more immersive feel. I'll point to Phoenix Wright, though, with the same criticism. Saving at any point allows players to freely guess at anything in the court case without consequences -- because they can just reload the situation if they make a mistake.
It would be better if the game just automatically saved at certain points, so the player doesn't even have to think about think about saving. If they have to run off and do something, they implement a temporary save, where it creates a save file, but deletes it once it's loaded again.
There are a variety of linear games that treat save points in a more normal fashion -- complete a set of challenges, and then be rewarded by being able to save. Not spacing them out properly causes players to get irritated at being pushed too far without being able to take a quick break. The system feels antiquated, but is there any way to change it without removing the challenge of playing through a level?
There's an evolution soon to happen, with HDD becoming the norm for how games save. It's possible that auto-saves might replace traditional save points, leaving players to go find someplace to replenish their health. Readers, how have game saves affected how you, and where do you think game saving should go in the future?
I will be back.
This made me think of Ocarina of Time. I mean, sure, you could save at any point during a dungeon, keep all your keys, your map, your compass, whatever, but you have to navigate your way through the whole dungeon again and deal with all the respawned monsters, rather than just starting back in the room you saved in.
I think this sort of save system left the game challenging enough where you might be a little hesitant to save your game, but even if you did, it's no incredible chore to get back to where you were.
i like this system, many times i'll go though the game and never use my quicksave feature but if im about to make a quest or plot decision i will quicksave and do both options.. reload and pick what option i liked better...
the only game i know to combat this is "The Witcher" it has a save beyond your quicksave and will remember the choices made and make you live with them... sort of an underlying LINK style... yes you go this far in the dungeon and got the boomerang but the dungeon is fully populated like you never came though..
i like that... i like the fact you cant cheat with saves but they still work to get you out of a jam, especially if you just plugged 3 hours into a game and die suddenly... 0_o
it was scary as hell till i realized i was GOD and could never die... then it because just a shooter with water... no more scary at all... :(
Not saying i dont use saves and loads to my advantage, but honestly it makes the game easier, thats my problem with it.
A game like RE would be shitty with an HL2-like save feature as it would lose quite a bit of its intensity.
However a game like FF or Zelda, when there is a lot of exploration required, and at times, quite a bit of backtracking, it would help if you could save whenever and wherever, frankly as a kid i've had my fair share of this conversation:
Parents/ Sister: h3lios get yer scrawny arse off the tv, xyz show is on!
h3lios: But i just got out of the Mako Reactor! Lemme find a save point!
Parents/Sister: Nopes...sorry
*pulls the PSOne plug*
Yeah, those games need an anytime save system.
This is what I really hate, because I have seen way to many people play these games like saving all the fucking time, every minute or something and when they die they reload. Wopidoo, where is the challenge? Where is the immersion? I mean, a game like Half-Life 2 for example, I saw a friend of mine play it and he was saving all the time and reloading if things went to bad or he died. He liked the game, but not *that* much and I actually think it had to do with that he didn't get that immersed. He didn't care as much if he died and he was always reminded that he was playing a video game because of the constant saving and frequent loading.
I prefer Aliens Vs Predator save system. Save whenever and you will return to the exact spot you where at, you don't have to redo squat. But, you can only save x times per level. Makes it much more interesting.
I certainly don't advocate quicksaving any time you mess up, creating essentially a perfect file, but when the controls can screw over an FPS newbie with ease, you want that safety cushion.
I was actually surprised with Phoenix Wright's quick saves, since I thought they were only temp saves, something that I came to love in GBA games like Castlevania and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. When my batteries died while I was playing, I was surprised to find that "temp save" still there, and I wonder why they did that when the game isn't that hard to begin with, and the exclamation point system is quite forgiving.
So . . . what's my point?
A carefully considered save system lends boatloads to a game's immersion and thematic elements. You brought up Resident Evil; a great save system for a scary game that requires planning and strategy, not just lightening fast reflexes. I'd make the same argument for Dead Rising. If you could just pull up a save menu and tag a save right before the Fat Butcher, I'd probably still be smashing my head against him. But the restrictive save mechanic forced me to try another tactic, and after folding and starting over, I really appreciate that all of this must've been planned out on some level. Saving (and how it's done) is integral to any gaming experience, and careful planning about how saves are going to work in your game shows an attention to detail that so many games are simply lacking.
I do agree that quicksaves on games like Half-Life are tantamount to cheating; it's like using freeze states in emulators to beat games that really should be kicking you around.
Anyone who played those games (up to Cinnabar where you can multiply rare candies) saved just before any big (gym?) battle, and then just restarted when they lost (oh, and they lost)
They were (are? whatever) good games, but the challenge kinda disappears when you can do anything without consequence.
Mind, it was WAY before Phoenix Wright or Half Life
And it's really soooooo immersive when you die that you have to play through the past half hour all over again. Just makes me feel soooo realistic. With Half Life 2, you don't have to save, it's completely unnecessary. It autosaves without needing to ask, and if you die, you're right back in the action, a minute or two before. How is that less immersive than having to redo a huge chunk?
Hell yeah. That little mechanic is the reason I have never come close to beating Nethack.
- game autosaves once everytime you leave game
- you have 2 quicksaves
- you can´t choose in which autosave position you want save game, game overwrites the older one
- there are no normal save positions
This would mean you can leave game without fear of loosing progress, you are protected from errors like saving right after falling in pit and you must wisely choose your decisions (but this doesn´t solve problem with saving after every corner). I think this would be great for RPG or games like Deus Ex.
I've probably put more time into that game than any other on my 360 so far and I could still play it without boredom. There's a lot to do and it's a challenge to do it all. The fact that you could start the game over after dying was actually a pretty good idea. I played through the first hour of the game multiple times until I was level eight or so, then tackled the rest of the game.
I don't think that they could have done anything different in terms of saving to make that game better. Easier, yes. Better, no.
Pokemon's still way before Half Life era though
I'll take your word for it
Playing through the game and not worrying about saving:Timeless.
anyone remember ROTT?
When I played 2 I realized there was a save at any time feature and I abused the hell out of it. I missed that feeling. It went from "What if I'm wrong?" to "Oh it doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'll just load my game."
When I play through 3 I don't believe I'll be using the save at any time feature. It really enhances the experience.
Oh and on the Half Life front: Checkpoints make great times to save and then only save at a checkpoint. Once again it increases the experience.
Anyone remember the Phantasy Star Universe save system on the dreamcast? The only option is save and quit. If you turn off the system while playing, it deletes your save file. If your power goes out while playing, it deletes your save file. Ouch.
Some people don't like the aggravation of losing a few hours worth of progress just because the developers thought frustration=challenge. Would you like to play a fighting game with no continues? That would be fucking boring, that's why they add survival modes and shit like that, for people who enjoy frustration.
@Oninusar
I remember that game. I like the fact that you could take shrooms and then go shoot people. Revolutionary.
Some people don't like the aggravation of losing a few hours worth of progress just because the developers thought frustration=challenge. Would you like to play a fighting game with no continues? That would be fucking boring, that's why they add survival modes and shit like that, for people who enjoy frustration.
@Oninusar
I remember that game. I like the fact that you could take shrooms and then go shoot people. Revolutionary.
Maybe then developers wouldn't have to worry so damn much about dumbing down games for the mainstream. It's not that hard to appeal to everyone, you just have to understand each audience.
Quick saves are nice, but i agree that its kind of silly to save after every little bit of progress. I tend to save before and after a big fight, just in case i die or something bad happens.
As it is, if you play through the game without abusing the save-and-quit system, you might end up having to pointlessly replay an entire case because the one-fail-and-you're-dead thing at the end killed you... And in a game like Phoenix Wright, that simply isn't fun. I actually played through the entire first game like that since I thought the save-and-quit thing was a temporary file, and trust me: Having to re-read the entire case all over again without being able to quick-tap your way through all the text gets tiresome.
Playing through 3, I really did think through all my answers, and never once abused the quicksave, even if I saved at the start of every conversation. Of course, the PW series occasionally makes the quicksave system necessary, since there are certain times when you've got a solution that the game just won't let you point out because the characters haven't realized it yet, and even if pointing it out with a particular piece of evidence makes perfect sense, the game simply won't accept it. But that's another matter.
i guess i've come to prefer the checkpoint sort of system seen in a lot of console shooters (mostly what i play nowadays) . temporary checkpoints at key points in the game so if you die you dont lose too much ground but you still get punished a little and try again, maybe trying something different.
the only problem i guess is when the checkpoints arent placed too far apart or in stupid places, well then your screwed and that when you through the controller at your little brother.