There's always a consequence for dying: If you get killed by something, you have to try again.
So what's the point of starting me 10 minutes ago to trudge through stuff I already know I can defeat just to get back up to the enemy that killed me the last time?
That's not beneficial to the experience, that's just boring all the way up until the final area where I died.
Do you play stealth or horror games? Those games really suffer from quicksave because there's no consequence for dying. If you die, you just load the save you made 10 seconds ago. Any game that relies on tension or suspense benefits greatly from a checkpoint system.
The problem is that free-saving... reduces immersion
I've never found a checkpoint system to be a game enhancing feature, nor a quicksave to be detrimental to the immersion.
The problem is that free-saving reduces any tension, reduces immersion, reduces difficulty and provides less consistency.
I think it's more about free-saving being bad than checkpoints being good. As I said, I like the approach taken by Sands Of Time and GRID - there is still tension but you lose the punishment factor of checkpoints. Games are about consequences, which makes it silly to put in a system that allows you to not worry about that.
I agree. Games like Half-Life 2 seem to have no problem using a quick-save feature along with auto-saving at certain points. It's all about providing the maximum enjoyment. Not everyone has the same gaming skill and experience. Some may not find it fun to fight through 6 mechs and an army of aliens just to get to a Save Point.The problem is that free-saving reduces any tension, reduces immersion, reduces difficulty and provides less consistency.
You don't like quick-save, fine; don't play the game. But trying to convince someone that checkpoints are better than quick-saves (or vice-versa) is just plain asinine.I think it's more about free-saving being bad than checkpoints being good. As I said, I like the approach taken by Sands Of Time and GRID - there is still tension but you lose the punishment factor of checkpoints. Games are about consequences, which makes it silly to put in a system that allows you to not worry about that.
The best solution is to let the player decide, how he wants to play. You don't want to be tempted to use quicksave? No problem, go the options menu and turn this feature off. Again, how hard can it be to do that?
Quick save is stupid, and I say that as a lifelong PC gamer of 20+ years. It removes all challenge and pacing and makes you focus on saving when you should be focused on playing the game. In an open-world game like Fallout 3 it has its place, definately, but in most games (like Lost Planet) it does not.
Well, according to me, it ruins my game experience, when i'm forced to use savepoints. I buy the game, i play the game, so it's MY descision, how i want to save in the game. It's not that hard, is it?
If its a dedicated PC build I'm happy but Capcom is notorious for putting out abysmal PC ports.
1. It is MY descision, how i want to play a singeplayer game
2. If its too hard or too easy, i use another difficulty setting
Far Cry is already the child of this growing, annoying habbit, to tell the player, how he has to save his game progress.
What you must take into account is that saving anywhere completely nerfs the difficulty of a game.
I think the best solution...
A simple quicksave feature, action games on the PC used to have before the console cancer.It's a design decision and isn't related to console development. The original Far Cry - a through and through PC game - used checkpoints. Annoying? Sure, but it did make you approach things differently. At the end of the day it comes down to how close they are and how often you come across them. If they miles apart and there are huge obstacles inbetween then obviously they're going to be annoying. What you must take into account is that saving anywhere completely nerfs the difficulty of a game.
Saving where you like can ruin the gameplay for certain titles(according to developers)
I can remember DOS games and Windows 95 titles without that functionality.
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad
I expect this to have all the faults that PC ports typically have.