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?
- 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.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow














follow