Quantcast


Weekend Reading: Saving your game photo

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?








More gaming stories around the web. Got news? Submit yours to tips@destructoid.com



Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

64 comments | showing # 1 to 50
prev
next 50 comments

Copyright 2008 Agent Chieftain's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:23
Copyright 2008 Agent Chieftain
I'm not a fan of manual saves, especially the new "Exactly What You Were Doing™ Save" that is now the standard. I prefer semi-sparse autosaves, so if I fuck up, i automatically have to backtrack quite a bit so I can fix my problem.
Neonie's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:25
Neonie
I read all that. And it was a great read. But at the momment I can't think of anything to respound to it with...

I will be back.
Brad Rice's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:26
Brad Rice
Chiefman, I actually made my roommate fight through an entire level of Half-Life without quick-saving, simply so that he could learn to do things without a safety net and learning more about how to do things.
Copyright 2008 Agent Chieftain's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:29
Copyright 2008 Agent Chieftain
I know what you're saying. Half-Life is a fucking great example of what I'm talking about. Especially Ravenholme.
HURGHT's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:29
HURGHT
"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?"

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.
Deathsaw's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:32
Deathsaw
Personally, I never think about saving. I hated the Dead Rising save system because you'd do all of these missions and tasks, find all these weapons and pimp out yourself with a matching sundress/sunhat combo and those stupid cons I killed before would just run me over and shoot me and kill me. I guess all that work that took 2 hours is just wasted. Thanks!
Eschatos's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:32
Eschatos
Personally, I think Half Life 2 and Bioshock do saving the best. With Half Life 2, I never save unless it's time for me to stop playing, and the autosave saves every few minutes, so if I die, no matter where I am, I go back a minute or two at max. In my opinion, that's the perfect save situation, even if you make a stupid mistake and accidentally die, you'll be right back where you started. Bioshock, is pretty similar in its approach, but instead of restarting slightly earlier, you simply respawn, with everything the same. That way, you don't need to save unless you're quitting. It's perfect, and I wish all games could be like it.
Oninusar's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:39
Oninusar
The Elder Scrolls saves your game when you exit or enter any map, these automatically over write each other and basically are a wonderful tool, it also create a hard save backup when you do decide to make a true SAVE btu the backups are very far from each other..

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
Oninusar's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:41
Oninusar
about the bioshock system, its falwed in the effect when you respawn all enemys are not returned to 100%... Bioshock = invincibility and no caution, with bioshock i stopped caring about health or anything because i would simply "respawn" and i mowed though everyone and beat the game...

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... :(
slacker1's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:42
slacker1
and then there is the save hack. In the game for GBA; Mario Golf Advance Tour, you can mulligan an entire hole by saving to retry/ or not. I would often do this even on the tee for a different set of random weather conditions. The opposite end of the stick is Maximo in my opininion, saving is tricky in many ways, death reaps you, and it doesn't even tell you how to register checkpoints, the player has to build a strategy for the entire duration of the game or start ALL over.
mackisawesome's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:46
mackisawesome
The problem i Have is with game like Half Life and Bioshock, if you die, or do something you dont like, you can just reload at your last save point. I think the idea of autosaves is a good one because i really dont believe the power should be in th user. Even with metal gear solid, the game thats shows, "if you screw up, you have to deal with it", you can still save and reload where you left off when you werent screwed.

Not saying i dont use saves and loads to my advantage, but honestly it makes the game easier, thats my problem with it.
Teta's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:47
Teta
I remember hating the Final Fantasy saves. I hate the fact i need to continue playing for a little while so i can save what i have been playing. Having to run from one place of the map, to another that is like 100000km away to get to a save point is annoying as hell. Or having this continous cut scenes and endless fights and no save point aviable. Sometimes i get bored, or i have something else to do, why can´t i stop playing? Because you have been playing for 2 hours and you can´t find a save point now, GG.
madninja's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:53
madninja
I was wondering when someone was about to talk about this. You notice more of the limited saves and savepoint systems in Japanese game development. In America we do the save at any point system. They both have pros and con, but I think the American way is better because if I am playing a game and my girlfriend comes over and she wants to watch tv or something, I can just hit the Save button and I can turn it off. I don't want to say to her, "Wait a moment let me find a save point". People say they like the Japanese way better because it poses a "challenge". And to those people, shut up!! Games are supposed to be fun and enjoyable not difficult, except for games like Ninja Gaiden. No one will probably read this so who cares I am just a Mad Ninja!!!
ShadowXOR's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 15:54
ShadowXOR
Dead Rising's save system made it the amazing game it was. You were actually on a time limit like in real life. It wasn't like other games where you could stand around for 50 hours in real life and not a damn thing changes. Such an amazing game and the save system really complimented it. I'm so tired of hearing people who can't adapt bitching about it.
h3lios's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:00
h3lios
i think it depends on the game's plot structure and gameplay.

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.
alexkorova's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:01
alexkorova
"Personally, I think Half Life 2 and Bioshock do saving the best. With Half Life 2, I never save unless it's time for me to stop playing, and the autosave saves every few minutes, so if I die, no matter where I am, I go back a minute or two at max. In my opinion, that's the perfect save situation, even if you make a stupid mistake and accidentally die, you'll be right back where you started. Bioshock, is pretty similar in its approach, but instead of restarting slightly earlier, you simply respawn, with everything the same. That way, you don't need to save unless you're quitting. It's perfect, and I wish all games could be like it."

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.
Bob Muir's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:01
Bob Muir
To clarify: I am a guy who normally saves a little bit more than the average, since I'm a busy guy and don't have a lot of time to spend replaying something that I already passed. The reason why I quicksaved to the point of madness in Half-life is that even if I knew exactly how to get through a room and was ready to do all that, I had to fight with the game's very iffy PS2 controls. Add that to the fact that it was my first FPS game (I had only played multiplayer matches for fun prior to this), and you can see how it got out of hand.

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.
madninja's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:04
madninja
Can I get a couple of people to rip about alex? Because that is just stupid.
madninja's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:05
madninja
Edit: rip apart
Dynamic Sheep's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:09
Dynamic Sheep
The problem I had with Dead Rising's save system was the fact that the disk is so prone to disk read errors that, through no fault of your own, you'll have to do some nigh impossible task over and over again.
TheStripe's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:09
TheStripe
I agree with Shadow; the Dead Rising save strategy was implemented for a reason. Since the clock was always ticking, if it were easy to save, you could always just back up and pick up the story line again if you dropped a case because you were too busy running down zombies with a meat truck. Dead Rising posed a tough choice just about every time you died. You could either choose to lose the story progress and Frank's expereince gained since the last save, or lose all of your story progress but keep all of Frank's experience. From how I played the game, it seems obvious to me that the developers intended you to save Frank's experience and start over at least once while playing through the story. When I made it to the fat butcher near the end of the 72 hour mode, I was stocked out on health and shotguns (and some mini chainsaws), and had not yet saved my status and started over. That fat bastard was unbeatable. I tried and tried and tried to get him sunk without starting all the way over, but no matter how true I shot, or how well I dodged, I'd always run out of shotgun shells and smoothies before resorting to the chainsaws. By the time he finally managed to stomp me into the floor, he'd have more than half his health left. At some point, I decided to play the story mode over again, to save a few more people, now that I'd figured out some tricks, and to keep leveling Frank up. When I made it back to fatty McMeatersons, he was almost a pushover.

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.
Brad Rice's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:09
Brad Rice
Necros, stop making excuses. You still fail.
qDot's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:11
qDot
Nethack: Die and it's all over, period. Now THAT'S a man's game mechanic.
dubbya's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:16
dubbya
The original "save whenever you want games" were the 1st two pokemon games, (yeah, I played em, got a problem?)

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
Eschatos's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:16
Eschatos
@alexkorova-

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?
Eschatos's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:19
Eschatos
@qDot-

Hell yeah. That little mechanic is the reason I have never come close to beating Nethack.
Bob Muir's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:20
Bob Muir
Not excuses, DMV. Reasons.
priwejia's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:23
priwejia
I would like to see in action this concept:

- 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.
tsunamikitsune's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:26
tsunamikitsune
I'm with ShadowXOR and TheStripe on the Dead Rising topic. I loved that save system, even if it did get a little frustrating at times. I bought that game with my 360 and everybody told me over and over again that "It would get boring after a few hours and the save system sucks." Not one part of that statement is true.

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.
2domby's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:30
2domby
All the saving is now gone for many players: We play WOW and Warhawk and all the other multiplayer-stuff. There is no god-being, just pure competition. Yeah.
The Grudge's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:34
The Grudge
I agree that Bioshocks non-penalized deaths make it so you can just wittle away at your oponents without much care. It's very hard to find the right balance of freedom and immersion. I think the Resident Evil save system suited that type of game completely. I would like something in the middle, although, I am sometimes guilty of quicksaving when I done something really well.
Teta's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:45
Teta
I think FPS need that "save whenever i want" option. I remmeber dying in Halo 1 for PC and having to clear some really hard places and doing it 100000 times cause i suck. Things that i didn´t have to do in the Half Life series, cause i would be saving everytime i pass a full of mobs area.
OrangeGoblin's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:48
OrangeGoblin
dubbya: Pokemon certainly wasn't the first. Didn't Doom have quicksave?
dubbya's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 16:57
dubbya
I dunno, I was a young-gun way back when

Pokemon's still way before Half Life era though

I'll take your word for it
Deathsaw's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 17:23
Deathsaw
I think the Ideal save system would be after iconic events in the level and at fixed points through the game. Final Fantasy always sucked in save systems because you'd watch almost a movie worth of animation, fight for 5 minutes, then watch another movie. Dead Rising was annoying because you'd be on the way to save,die, then restart and fight through the place you fought through already. I just rely on Autosaves the most though so I don't mind fighting through an area and then waiting 1 second for the autosave. Going through the menu and saving takes 5 seconds and finding a fixed save spot takes 5 minutes.

Playing through the game and not worrying about saving:Timeless.
Oninusar's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 17:27
Oninusar
doom and quake had quicksaves... as did RISE OF THE TRIAD if im not mistaken....

anyone remember ROTT?
Tino's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 17:31
Tino
The first time I played through the original Pheonix Wright I didnt realize that you could save at any time. I beat it using the built in save system. It was one of the most stressful and engaging experiences I've ever had. When it came down to big descisions I would quite literally pace around my room with my DS contemplating an answer.

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.
Tino's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 17:42
Tino
@Oninusar: Rise of the Triad was a crazy violent game.

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.
Chris Morris's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:06
Chris Morris
I actually played through entire cases until they presented me with a save point in Phoenix Wright, I think part of that was due to the fact that I couldn't put the damned game down. As far as regular / auto-saves with the new consoles using HDD's, I would prefer to see both remain. Auto-saves are convenient if you forget to save or don't realize that you have passed a checkpoint, if you turn off the game in the middle you don't have to start all over. Manual saves are very nice, in RPG's especially. It sucks to play for 2 hours only to find out that you missed something important for total completion (if you play like that) and you have since saved over any hope of going back. Multiple saves have been a savior for me in many, many games. I guess you just have to find a fine like between saves being helpful and convenient or exploiting them to make the overall game easier for yourself.
Steel Squirrel's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:26
Steel Squirrel
Well they should just have a save anywhere feature in any game that it's appropriate for and if you don't like it, don't use it. They ask you most of the time if you'd like to save a checkpoint when it gets to be time to do so.
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.
Steel Squirrel's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:26
Steel Squirrel
Well they should just have a save anywhere feature in any game that it's appropriate for and if you don't like it, don't use it. They ask you most of the time if you'd like to save a checkpoint when it gets to be time to do so.
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.
Steel Squirrel's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:26
Steel Squirrel
Why the hell did that post twice?
PetiePal's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:35
PetiePal
Ever quick save by accident right before you die, and your last save was hours prior? It's funny to try to "escape" the inescapable death, and serves myself or anyone else right who saves too fast and too often.
MassiveDuck's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 18:42
MassiveDuck
I feel like halo has a really good auto save system. You would rarely be left backtracking too much and you never had to worry about the next time it would save. Not perfect of course, but still very adept.
Burnt Meatloaf's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 19:00
Burnt Meatloaf
In general, I wish games were more adaptable and supported more difficulty levels. One of the ways to implement higher difficulty is to redefine how saving is handled. Fewer saves, saves at a cost, a larger scope for each save, losing weapons, inventory, or ammo, etc.

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.
Lord_Satorious's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 19:29
Lord_Satorious
I dislike the 'save anywhere, anytime, load the game back up without losing anything' system because I find in games with limited stocks of necessary items, I try to play too perfectly. I'll save and load until I do a section as well as I feel I can, and this just isn't fun. I thought "Gears of War" had a good checkpoint save system, although I thought the checkpoint on that pumping station should have _after_ the dialogue, the talk about selling cookies became ridiculous after a while.
ajaxender's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 19:51
ajaxender
quick saves lead my friend to go through fear on second hardest without taking damage... that took him a while lol.
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.
twentythoughts's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 20:26
twentythoughts
Having just played through Phoenix Wright 3, I really think that game should've stuck to a more frequent prompted saving system than what it had, plus a temporary save-and-quit thing that got deleted when you picked it back up.

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.
zombie_wannabe's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 21:05
zombie_wannabe
I think its a tricky balance for most games. too much user control results in the step-save-step-save type of play but not control or inconvenient save points will frustrate the player.

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.
yuiichi's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/09/2007 21:36
yuiichi
The first game I played with save was The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening for Gameboy. I've always liked the save model it had (similar to what TheMartino said with Phantasy Star Universe) was Save & Quit. I really liked this since it kind of blocked off play - every time I played, I had a goal to get to and then I'd save and do something else. Another mechanic this employed was the fact that you'd start at the beginning of each dungeon if you saved in the middle. This is still in the Zelda games of today, although it's more lenient with "save your location" items.
prev next 50 comments

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!