'Save anywhere' feature saps the fun out of games

I like the save anywhere feature. While it removes a certain degree of difficulty from games it gives you the option to save rather than hope the last checkpoint wasn't too far back. I find it annoying when I have to turn off a game only to pick it up later and redo what I already did. It'd be nice if there was an option for players to use whichever save system they are more comfortable with.

While there's something to be said for the trial and error side of this, saving anywhere is just way too convenient. Say I'm playing FF12 and need to save quickly because I've got other things to do. Given the scale of 12, you're totally screwed if there isn't a save point near, so you just have to retread your path again to get back to a save point, and that isn't challenging. At all. Its just ****ing annoying.

While there's something to be said for the trial and error side of this, saving anywhere is just way too convenient. Say I'm playing FF12 and need to save quickly because I've got other things to do. Given the scale of 12, you're totally screwed if there isn't a save point near, so you just have to retread your path again to get back to a save point, and that isn't challenging. At all. Its just ****ing annoying.

Fortier

[QUOTE="Fortier"]

While there's something to be said for the trial and error side of this, saving anywhere is just way too convenient. Say I'm playing FF12 and need to save quickly because I've got other things to do. Given the scale of 12, you're totally screwed if there isn't a save point near, so you just have to retread your path again to get back to a save point, and that isn't challenging. At all. Its just ****ing annoying.

Ectomy

I find your "reasoning" wrong, the creativity of a level design has nothing to do with the save system being implemented, in fact in more open and interactive environments a checkpoint system would simply not work, like Crysis. It seems to me that having a save anywhere feature actually frees up the level design from constrains.

I also strongly disagree on the difficulty part, all that a checkpoint system does is make me replay the two or three easy encounters until I reach a harder one. It just extends the time, not the challenge.

The comments about PC's is kind of stupid, what exclusive console FPS game have creative level design? And just to prove yourself wrong you should look at the difference between the PC and console versions of GRAW2, wich one is more challenging, more complex and more unforgiving? Hell GRAW2 on PC is the hardest game of '07, even on easy.

Finally just because you dislike something does not make the design choice bad but it is just your own personal opinion. I like save anywhere because it gives me choice of how I play my game, for how long I want to and whether the encounter is fun enough and I think I can do better at it for me to replay it or if I find my mistake to laborous and boring to correct then I do not have to. Maybe you lack the will power not to abuse the system or don't like having choice but than that is your problem.

Oh and one more thing I like reloading my rpg game before I make my decision to see the different consequences and I don't automatically choose the better one. And again your resoning here is no more correct had there been an autosave one minute before that I would still have done the same.

EDIT: The Deus Ex point is even more mute since gameplay options only become available if you design your character a certain way.

EDIT 2: Another thing, I am just playing STALKER and for the sake of things decided to eliminate the army guards near the railyard embarkment armed only with my pistol and sawed-off shotgun, it was a fun battle as I came up to the first one and blew a slug into his face. The rest I had to draw out and ambush them as they went back. Suffice to say it was a fun battle but I would never make enemies of the military in STALKER and at the end I just reloaded my save game, even though I won. Isn't nice that the game gave me that choice without going through some sort of useless system where I would have to reload progress that is more that ten minutes old?

or at the least the challenge, PC games have had it for years and recently console games. Take for example Deus Ex, since it has this feature it renders the choice mechanic all but useless, just save before an important confrontation and if you have made a poor or unsatisfactory decision you simply load and try again. It becomes a task of trial and error, people complain about 'save stations' or 'checkpoints' calling it 'old' or 'outdate, but it increases the challenge and suspense of the game.greenghost123

I am sorry but if you don't have the will power to not do that then I don't really feel your opinion is worthwhile. you could still do that in an autosave system but then it would just become a question on whether you want to replay some parts of the game again.

Are you kidding? Quicksaves are a god send in games, otherwise I'd have a heart attack through stress because I'd completed a hard fight, only to do something stupid like fall off a cliff. I don't think it removes the challenge at all, I just think it helps you on your way to completing the game.

I really hated the stupid checkpoint saves in Halo!

Far Cry was the most frustrating game ever because of the checkpoints. It sucks when you try the same damn thing a billion times.

The best thing is having checkpoints AND save anywhere. Well-placed checkpoints are a bonus.

If for someone "save anywhere" saps the fun, don't use it unless you have to leave the game.

I play Deus Ex right now, and I save where I like, when I like. But I never go back if a make a mistake, it's something related with the willpower I guess:P

I never manually saved in Crysis, because Crytek learned some design lessons after Far Cry. But of course I save in Stalker, because the maps are huge and I don't wanna do the same things again. Where's the fun in repeating so much?

Also, I don't get it why old games had replay value because they lacked manual saving. Replay value for the same level or what?I replay a game ifI like it, not because it's frustrating.

I replayed Far Cry. Twice.

Save anywhere is a feature that makes games actually playable for some of us. Not because the games are hard, but because we have a limited amount of time to invest in the game. Games with a checkpoint system or save anywhere but reload at the checkpoint system (Zelda) require me to set aside a block of time to get through that section. I can't simply pick them up and play for 10 minutes, save, and come back to it the next day.

This doesn't even account for how "fun" checkpoints can be when there's a section of the game that requires luck to get through. It's not replay value if I'm forced to play the same part of the game over and over because of a design flaw.

"Save anywhere" has destroyed gaming for me. Having success after numerous attempts at a challenging task used to be the most rewarding part of gaming. Now between "save anywhere" and the cinematic crap, games seem to be designed to be "experienced" (translation: viewed) as much as "played."

Reading threads like this always pisses me off. Once again, 90% of the responses are in favor of "save anywhere" because 1) "I don't have time to play for hours anymore", or 2) "I don't want to play a level a quadrillion times".

Well my response is:

1) Neither do I have hours on end to devote to gaming anymore, but games with more than 15 minutes between save points are rare. In such a game, turning the console off might set you back 10 minutes ... but it's more likely 5 minutes because next time you will have a better idea knowing what you're doing.

2) How bad do you have to be at gaming to repeat a level more than a half dozen times? Almost all games (set at normal difficulty) are so effing easy these days as it is!

I'm convinced that people no longer want to PLAY games anymore. They just want to walk through them to the end, put a notch in their bedpost (or gaming forum) then move on to the next game/walkthrough. What happened to playing a game because you enjoy the challenge? Why do you need a steady progression to the end without setbacks? Crap this point pisses me off!

"Save anywhere" has destroyed gaming for me. Having success after numerous attempts at a challenging task used to be the most rewarding part of gaming. Now between "save anywhere" and the cinematic crap, games seem to be designed to be "experienced" (translation: viewed) as much as "played."

Reading threads like this always pisses me off. Once again, 90% of the responses are in favor of "save anywhere" because 1) "I don't have time to play for hours anymore", or 2) "I don't want to play a level a quadrillion times".

Well my response is:

1) Neither do I have hours on end to devote to gaming anymore, but games with more than 15 minutes between save points are rare. In such a game, turning the console off might set you back 10 minutes ... but it's more likely 5 minutes because next time you will have a better idea knowing what you're doing.

2) How bad do you have to be at gaming to repeat a level more than a half dozen times? Almost all games (set at normal difficulty) are so effing easy these days as it is!

I'm convinced that people no longer want to PLAY games anymore. They just want to walk through them to the end, put a notch in their bedpost (or gaming forum) then move on to the next game/walkthrough. What happened to playing a game because you enjoy the challenge? Why do you need a steady progression to the end without setbacks? Crap this point pisses me off!

ymi_basic

I think you're stuck in the 80's/early 90's dude. The single player experience now IS about immersivness and telling a story. It really IS more like cinema than Super Mario Bros. The folks who want mind blowing difficulty and competition have gone online because consumer level AI can't compete with top human opponants.

This being said there are still single player games that leverage difficulty in a rewarding fashion being produced. One of my favorites to date is Devil May Cry 3 (normal, not the pansy SE) which I heartily suggest to you if you haven't tried it yet.

The trick to making a, to quote Greg K's review of DMC3, "needlessly difficult" game lots of fun is to have gameplay mechanics that are STILL loads of fun when you're retrying a level for the 20th time (A very real thing on Dante Must Die difficulty). Most games today, particularly the HIGHLY DERIVITIVE FPS genre just plain don't have gameplay that is that compelling so thank goodness there's save anywhere to get us more rapidly to the much more interesting plot elements.

If anything, save anywhere should be mandatory. The feature does nothing but provides you with options. Save points deny you options. The notion that it reduces challenge is nonsensical. It's the same thing with all the fast travel whining in Oblivion - if it's that much of an issue for you - don't use it.

Realistically, after accidently alerting a gang of crackheads with machine guns your not going to continue on, most likely you saved before the confrontation and will simply load from there, so it's not really a matter of will power (people are diffrent). People seem to think that save points = horribly designed, not true, just because a developer has no sense of difficulty or distance does not mean the system is broken, like someone here said most games with checkpoints save every 10 minutes, and if you had the oppurtunity to fire up your system at home then you should (depending on what you do in life) be able to play for 10 minutes.

I think they should implement a kind of 'sleep' system some handheld games use, you have a save point/checkpoint, but if you need to do something all of a sudden you can simply put the console to sleep and when you come back you'll be at the same save point you were but what you did later on is still remembered, and you should blaze through quickly knowing where to go.

I love save anywhere. I don't know how long i can play, some times its 10 mins, some times its 6 hours. I have no idea. It gives me the freedom to play on my time.hummer700

I think a "Save anywhere"-feature is cutting all the challenge out of the games and just a poor execuse for designers who can´t make a acceptable or fair level design.Look at all the PC-FPS...and when it comes to poor design only Tomb Raider 3 comes directly into my mind...I heard so much stuff about it I´m happy I never was a fan of the series...and didn´t play the PS1-Version.

I think you're stuck in the 80's/early 90's dude. The single player experience now IS about immersivness and telling a story. Uberbadassmufuh

I love the save anywhere feature. I'd much rather have the difficulty come from the gameplay itself rather than attempting to find the next savepoint. shaunmc

If anything, save anywhere should be mandatory. The feature does nothing but provides you with options. Save points deny you options. The notion that it reduces challenge is nonsensical. It's the same thing with all the fast travel whining in Oblivion - if it's that much of an issue for you - don't use it.UpInFlames

Personally I like games that have a checkpoint save system, which means that depending on the difficulty, the Devs can change the frequency of the checkpoints to suit the difficulty. So on easy there might be a save before every big battle, but on hard you might need to go through a couple of battles before you hit a save.

That being said, it only works when the checkpoints are done well (E.g. The Halo series (in my mind at least) has always done checkpoints well).

I also know of some games (well one :P) that limit the number of saves per level as you bump up the difficulty, so you really have to make sure that every save counts.

As with any challenge, one tends to use any tool at one's disposal. If it's part of the game, you use it. If you revert to a recent save point immediately after pulling a bonehead move, you don't pay a significant penalty for your mistake. It's like playing with invincibility turned on. That removes challenge. I don't know how you can deny that.ymi_basic

Because the challenge is artificial. It doesn't come from well-programmed AI or cleverly designed puzzles - you're fighting against the game itself, against the save system.

What puzzles me about ymi's take is that there are orders greater difficulty in online games these days then we've ever had in offline games. I play offline games for the story immersiveness or because I don't have the garunteed time to go online and play.

ymi: Why don't you play online games for the hardest difficulty gaming has ever seen to date?

[QUOTE="ymi_basic"]As with any challenge, one tends to use any tool at one's disposal. If it's part of the game, you use it. If you revert to a recent save point immediately after pulling a bonehead move, you don't pay a significant penalty for your mistake. It's like playing with invincibility turned on. That removes challenge. I don't know how you can deny that.UpInFlames

The Halo series (in my mind at least) has always done checkpoints well).G013M

ymi: Why don't you play online games for the hardest difficulty gaming has ever seen to date? Uberbadassmufuh

This question really should've been posed to UpImFlames. If he thinks AI is the best way to make real challenge that's not "artificial", why not just play multiplayer (where the AI is just I)?

I think they should implement a kind of 'sleep' system some handheld games use, you have a save point/checkpoint, but if you need to do something all of a sudden you can simply put the console to sleep and when you come back you'll be at the same save point you were but what you did later on is still remembered, and you should blaze through quickly knowing where to go.greenghost123

This is actually one of the reason I prefer handhelds over consoles. They are setup to be extremely accessible. I'd be OK with a sleep type save system (only saves on exit) and once you load it it's deleted. It's much more acceptable than checkpoint saves.

As with any challenge, one tends to use any tool at one's disposal. If it's part of the game, you use it. If you revert to a recent save point immediately after pulling a bonehead move, you don't pay a significant penalty for your mistake. It's like playing with invincibility turned on. That removes challenge. I don't know how you can deny that.ymi_basic

But, with save anywhere you made the choice save repeatedly thus removing the challenge. Why should I be penalized by having to game in 15 minutes increments? Yes, I may only have 15 minutes to play. But if I have 25, I am now 10 minutes past the last save but 5 minutes from the next.

If you're not going to be able to provide a save anywhere system, then the save system better be able to save about every 5 minutes. It has nothing to do with the difficulty; I just don't want to play the same 10, 15, 20 minutes over because I don't have the time to progress to the next save point or worse find the next save point.

I have no problem with challenging games. I have problems with poorly designed areas. There are games where you're required to do something stupidly difficult (like crappy platforming) and once you're past that point the game continues at the normal difficulty.

Personally I like games that have a checkpoint save system, which means that depending on the difficulty, the Devs can change the frequency of the checkpoints to suit the difficulty. So on easy there might be a save before every big battle, but on hard you might need to go through a couple of battles before you hit a save.G013M

I think this idea sucks. Because I don't want to be hindered by a crappy checkpoint system, my only option is to play on easy? If it's going to be a setting, make it separate. I don't think most devs realize how nice it would be if there were say easy, default, and hard that automatically adjusted some sliders/drop-downs/something and then if the player wanted to dial in the difficulty more to their liking, they could. For example, Silent Storm does a great job of this. I can make my enemies tougher, my characters weaker, I can impose some stupid save system rules (or not), but it's up to me what challenges I take.

I love save anywhere. I don't know how long i can play, some times its 10 mins, some times its 6 hours. I have no idea. It gives me the freedom to play on my time.hummer700

Yes, agree. It's very considerate for players to have such a system.

[QUOTE="G013M"] The Halo series (in my mind at least) has always done checkpoints well).ymi_basic

In my mind, the Halo checkpoints ruin the game. You might as well just play kamikaze all the time because death has no consequence (aside from the loss of a few seconds of play time).

...that's if you die at the start of the fight. Halo tends to place checkpoints at the start of a large battle, and if it is especially large, in the middle during a pause. If you look at Halo 3, big battle tend to go for a couple of minutes, and then there's a bit of a walk to the next one. I don't particularly want to die, and then have to walk my way back into the battle.

But other then the checkpoint before, and perhaps the checkpoint in the middle, there aren't really checkpoints during the battle -- so I don't see how you're going to be able to go kamikaze, it's more about being able to immediately restart the battle without any wait.

[quote="G013M"]Personally I like games that have a checkpoint save system, which means that depending on the difficulty, the Devs can change the frequency of the checkpoints to suit the difficulty. So on easy there might be a save before every big battle, but on hard you might need to go through a couple of battles before you hit a save.Skie7

I think this idea sucks. Because I don't want to be hindered by a crappy checkpoint system, my only option is to play on easy? If it's going to be a setting, make it separate. I don't think most devs realize how nice it would be if there were say easy, default, and hard that automatically adjusted some sliders/drop-downs/something and then if the player wanted to dial in the difficulty more to their liking, they could. For example, Silent Storm does a great job of this. I can make my enemies tougher, my characters weaker, I can impose some stupid save system rules (or not), but it's up to me what challenges I take.

Now I probably should have said that I've got nothing against quick-save, and I do use it where it's avaliable.

But I don't have anything against checkpoints, and it's just another tool for a dev to be able to ramp up the difficulty. On easy, you might be able to act a bit more unsafe in your decisions, because you know that you won't be sent back too far. Harder difficulties means that there's a longer wait till you're able to save and be sure that when you die, that's how far that you get sent back -- which means that the player will probably take it a bit slower.

But anyway, playing against a Hard AI, but with frequent saves (or the ability to save anywhere) makes the game much easier then if there are less frequent saves. You don't have the ability to quickly rewind a mistake, or carefully plan a move (and face it we all do that sometimes) by knowing what they are going to do.

or at the least the challenge, PC games have had it for years and recently console games. Take for example Deus Ex, since it has this feature it renders the choice mechanic all but useless, just save before an important confrontation and if you have made a poor or unsatisfactory decision you simply load and try again. It becomes a task of trial and error, people complain about 'save stations' or 'checkpoints' calling it 'old' or 'outdate, but it increases the challenge and suspense of the game.greenghost123

[QUOTE="greenghost123"]or at the least the challenge, PC games have had it for years and recently console games. Take for example Deus Ex, since it has this feature it renders the choice mechanic all but useless, just save before an important confrontation and if you have made a poor or unsatisfactory decision you simply load and try again. It becomes a task of trial and error, people complain about 'save stations' or 'checkpoints' calling it 'old' or 'outdate, but it increases the challenge and suspense of the game.badboyblack

no you shouldnt be given the option

CoD4 is a great example of not saving where you want,

I agree that Quicksave features take the intensity out of gaming. this is why Ioved Far Cry for the PC

it really makes you take care of yourself alot more using cover more carefully and improving your accurracy for real fear of your own life (and the fear of replaying a section of the game all over again)

To some people, not having save anywhere is annoying and frustrating, especially when you almost reach the checkpoint and than have to start from the beginning. Prince of Persia Two Thrones horrible save checkpoints comes to mind.

Halo tends to place checkpoints at the start of a large battle, and if it is especially large, in the middle during a pause. If you look at Halo 3, big battle tend to go for a couple of minutes, and then there's a bit of a walk to the next one. I don't particularly want to die, and then have to walk my way back into the battle.

But other then the checkpoint before, and perhaps the checkpoint in the middle, there aren't really checkpoints during the battle -- so I don't see how you're going to be able to go kamikaze ...G013M

Why should I be penalized by having to game in 15 minutes increments? Yes, I may only have 15 minutes to play. But if I have 25, I am now 10 minutes past the last save but 5 minutes from the next.Skie7

Once again, I'm finding myself getting pissed off, so I will leave this thread with this thought ... The importance that games and gamers now place on story and continuous progression has been enormously negative to gaming for the sake of gaming, imo.

Why is it artificial to ask you to make three head shots in a row (without saving) in a shooter? Is it artificial to ask you to make it around three corners in a racer without saving? ... or three jumps in a platformer? To me, that's just as much a part of a game as is "smart" AI. Designers and testers can challenge the player to perform ... or be penalized.ymi_basic

If you want that sort of challenge, then challenge yourself - the option is always there. By giving you options, developers are letting you adapt the game to your own playstyIe. By taking away options, they are forcing everyone to play on their terms. You want to force everyone to play on your playstyIe simply because you lack self-control. I'll give you an example - in Oblivion, I decided not to use fast travel because I wanted to be as immersed in the gameworld as possible. However, in some rare ocassions, I did use it and I was grateful I had the option of deciding for myself whether to use a certain feature or not.

But really, who the hell keeps their finger on the quicksave key at all times? You're making it out as if everyone mashes the quicksave key after defeating every single enemy.

It's not really a question of willpower. After going into a room and being killed by some random enemy that just spawned behind you, your finger goes automatically to the quicksave button, just to calm your nerves. I don't know anyone that refuses to use a quicksave feature once he/she realises it's there. Options are great to have, but it's a question of design as well.nopalversion

Unless your goal is to get frustrated when playing games, I'd say that's a good thing, no?

After playing many a game with terrible save systems, I appreciate the ability to save anywhere I want.

But I have enough willpower that I'm not constantly saving and re-loading after every little thing.