NEW DISEASE CALLED "NO MANUAL SAVING". HOW TO TREAT IT?

I've just had the brightest idea ever...check this out:

MANUAL SAVING DLC! TIRED OF BEING UNABLE TO SAVE YOUR GAME PROGRESS? HITTING F5 BUTTON BUT NOTHING HAPPENS? PRE-ORDER NOW AND GET YOUR EXCLUSIVE MANUAL SAVING DELUXE EDITION FOR 59,99$!!!

Depends honestly.

I'd say quicksaving works very well in RTS and older isometric RPG; unforgiving games with traps as well

In everything else it pretty much ruins the fun.

I agree that this is a serious disease.  It has taken a lot of the fun of gaming away for me.  Why take away part of the player's control over their game experience?  I've heard the responses to this question, and rejected them.  

One advantage I have with manual and quicksaving is that it lets you set up your own checkpoints.

This means that you can have as many or as few as you want. I prefer there being consequences for failure (which can very well be permanent loss of a party member or resetting 10 minutes of the level). What I really dont like is when failure is not a set back at all, which is the case with a lot of checkpoint systems today, they are far too generous with them.

At the same time, I do think devs should look into what causes save scumming, and fix that so players wont feel the urge to savescum. Make failure not a "you lose" moment and in RPGs, use fixed loot for goodness sake, dont make me reload a game 30 times so he will finally drop that axe I wanted.

 

Then WHY are you saving? It's an OPTION! Nobody forbids you NOT to save your progress if you want that much of a challenge.

Pelezinho777

That's like asking "WHY are you trying to beat the game using the tools they give you?! it's OPTIONAL!" :lol:

No wait, you're right. Developers should just give up on implementing difficulty into games, players should just make the games difficult for themselves. Every game should just have one difficulty mode: Easy . Then let the players restrain themselves to create difficulty. Difficulty is too inconvenient anyways. :lol:

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw,

KHAndAnime

agreed 100%.

Sure I like to quick save alot of the time in games, but if its not in there it is hardly a big deal to me. Also as you said some games just would not work as well with quick save.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]I think it depends on the game. For things like RPGs and RTS then manual saving should be there. For fast games like Racing Games and FPS, autosave is fine.biggest_loser

Wut? :P

SA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GTA IV

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

 

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

KHAndAnime

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

 

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

hartsickdiscipl

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

Yes there is

Some games are BUILT around you dying and learning from your mistakes and then adapting from them, rather than "oh I got hit, time to quickload". Games with restricted saving also means I actually weigh into choices, "Am I gonna risk dying to get that item" as opposed to "I will quicksave here, get that item and if I fail, it means nothing anyway". The entire Risk vs Reward aspect is gone.

In games that have checkpoints or no reloading whatsoever (roguelikes), I find myself actually reflecting on and learning from my mistakes and adapting to them in the future. And when I conquer a challenge, it is because I conquered it through skill, not through dilligence (quickloading enough times). In games that ahve ironman modes, I actually actually feel satisfied when I beat a game unlike a game that lets you savescum where my victories feel so darn cheap.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

 

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

hartsickdiscipl

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

 

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

Maroxad

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

Yes there is

Some games are BUILT around you dying and learning from your mistakes and then adapting from them, rather than "oh I got hit, time to quickload". Games with restricted saving also means I actually weigh into choices, "Am I gonna risk dying to get that item" as opposed to "I will quicksave here, get that item and if I fail, it means nothing anyway". The entire Risk vs Reward aspect is gone.

In games that have checkpoints or no reloading whatsoever (roguelikes), I find myself actually reflecting on and learning from my mistakes and adapting to them in the future. And when I conquer a challenge, it is because I conquered it through skill, not through dilligence (quickloading enough times). In games that ahve ironman modes, I actually actually feel satisfied when I beat a game unlike a game that lets you savescum where my victories feel so darn cheap.

I have real life if I want to weigh risk vs reward and think that much.  I play games to have fun and have control over what happens.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

 

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

KHAndAnime

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

I think you take gaming a bit too seriously.  It's supposed to be an escape from the real world, at least in my book.  I've been gaming for 20 years.  I don't need your condescending attitude.  Let the player have maximum control over the game.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

Gaming 101: Difficulty is important in gaming. Do you think Dark Souls and Demons Souls would have the same critically acclaimed scores if they allowed you to quicksave? Hell naw, dumbies. You can always just use cheats/trainers if you find a game too difficult. Quick-saving feels like cheating to me anyways, so I never get fully satisfied by games utilizing only quick-saving.

There are plenty of games that utilize quick-saving effectively because the developers realized they make the games too easy, so they implemented restraint (M&B and Hitman games for example). Sadly, most developers just throw in a bare-bones quick-save system and occasionally a poorly-thought out checkpoint system. I'd just simply prefer a well-thought out checkpoint system or a limited amount of quick-saves per game section. It's just rarely done this way.

KHAndAnime

I game to have fun. If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints. There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.

Try to avoid rude talk, you are not the one to decide what kind of a lifestyle anybody should have. Here is discussion over something that was rather usual sometime before, but not today. All we are doing is asking why. Sure, there are games that you play from A to B without any safe points, but that's not the matter.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I game to have fun. If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints. There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.

hartsickdiscipl

I think you take gaming a bit too seriously. It's supposed to be an escape from the real world, at least in my book. I've been gaming for 20 years. I don't need your condescending attitude. Let the player have maximum control over the game.

I've been gaming for 20 years, too, and totally agree with you.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I game to have fun.  If a game is well-made, it can be fun without having to force it's own save checkpoints.  There is no legit excuse not to have quicksave or at least some form of manual save.  

hartsickdiscipl

Yes there is

Some games are BUILT around you dying and learning from your mistakes and then adapting from them, rather than "oh I got hit, time to quickload". Games with restricted saving also means I actually weigh into choices, "Am I gonna risk dying to get that item" as opposed to "I will quicksave here, get that item and if I fail, it means nothing anyway". The entire Risk vs Reward aspect is gone.

In games that have checkpoints or no reloading whatsoever (roguelikes), I find myself actually reflecting on and learning from my mistakes and adapting to them in the future. And when I conquer a challenge, it is because I conquered it through skill, not through dilligence (quickloading enough times). In games that ahve ironman modes, I actually actually feel satisfied when I beat a game unlike a game that lets you savescum where my victories feel so darn cheap.

I have real life if I want to weigh risk vs reward and think that much.  I play games to have fun and have control over what happens.  

Some games are a lot more fun when you can actually lose and have consequences for losing (which is redonig parts of the level).

I want gaming to be satisfying. And as it happens, I find victory to be far, far sweeter in games that you can't save scum than games where you can save scum.

Sure give us the ability to save anywyhere, BUT at the same time, add some ironman mode or something, to compensate for those wanting a more challenging and rewarding experience.

I really used to miss the manual saving option when they slowly began to slowly phase it out. As most people here pointed out, gamers really need to have control over their saves. For those looking for an experience only with checkpoints. a separate game mode can be added. All the Half-Life games implemented a perfect save feature. They had quciksaves, as well as autosaves at key points, so that gamers could play it in whatever way they desired. Unfortunately, that kind of save system has fallen out of favor with developers.

Now, I've gotten used to games having no manula saves, because if I didn't, I'd just have to stop playing games. One advantage I did find with this checkpoint system is that now I can focus completely on the action, rather than hitting the quicksave key often. This is a rather pleasant 'side effect' of checkpoint save system, which I'm enjoying.

By the way, checkpoints seem fine for a game which has regenerating health, but its completely frustrating in games in which you have to actually find health packs or medical stations to heal yourself. And also, most games of today only have checkpoints too far between each other. In any case, even if there is no manual save option, I feel that its definitely required to provide an option to save progress before quitting. There are times when people need to immediately quit the game and attend to some really important stuff. In such cases, it would be damn frustrating if they have made a lot of progress, and lose that progress when they quit.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] More like if you aren't a baby, you can have fun without a manual save system in place. There are so many games that would have their gameplay value diminished if you could save freely. Anyone who doesn't value difficulty in their games is a baby. Perhaps Facebook games are more up your alley - they're made for people just like yourselves - with your 'busy' lifestyles that can't handle videogame checkpoints.

Pelezinho777

I think you take gaming a bit too seriously. It's supposed to be an escape from the real world, at least in my book. I've been gaming for 20 years. I don't need your condescending attitude. Let the player have maximum control over the game.

I've been gaming for 20 years, too, and totally agree with you.

[QUOTE="Pelezinho777"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I think you take gaming a bit too seriously. It's supposed to be an escape from the real world, at least in my book. I've been gaming for 20 years. I don't need your condescending attitude. Let the player have maximum control over the game.

KHAndAnime

I've been gaming for 20 years, too, and totally agree with you.

There is no watering down.  If you don't want to ruin your experience with the quicksave feature, don't use it.  Problem solved. 

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="Pelezinho777"]

 

I've been gaming for 20 years, too, and totally agree with you.

hartsickdiscipl

There is no watering down.  If you don't want to ruin your experience with the quicksave feature, don't use it.  Problem solved. 

No use saying anything to KHAndAnime, because he fails to accepts that most others here are owning him with thier reasoning.

Yes, manual saving and quick saving is very useful to me

kraken2109

Its up to the indivdual to USE THE DAMN FEATURE so i do not understand the argument of OH it makes it easier! An option to disable it in the options menu or how about you just dont manula save and show some restraint. Its a great feature that allows for approaching fun situations a number of ways increasingly complex games. 

There are times when people need to immediately quit the game and attend to some really important stuff. In such cases, it would be damn frustrating if they have made a lot of progress, and lose that progress when they quit.

funkyzoom

Absolutely, especailly when you made that progress engrossed with the setting and wish not to repeat the same action quickly and recklessly just to reach that checkpoint. It leaves bitter taste in allegedly immersive experience.

Absoulution was ruined because of this.

6_Dead_360s

You're generalizing that no manual save, or checkpoint systems are flawed. No, my friend, it's just that game is flawed. In this case, I blame the developer who not only implemented a bad checkpoint/save system but also, a broken disguise system that was rendered useless.

Like Felipe and others have stated, a well-designed game with fair autosaves/checkpoints is absolutely fine. Some games cannot be designed around manual saves or else it will just break the game.

[QUOTE="funkyzoom"]

There are times when people need to immediately quit the game and attend to some really important stuff. In such cases, it would be damn frustrating if they have made a lot of progress, and lose that progress when they quit.

Pelezinho777

Absolutely, especailly when you made that progress engrossed with the setting and wish not to repeat the same action quickly and recklessly just to reach that checkpoint. It leaves bitter taste in allegedly immersive experience.

[QUOTE="Pelezinho777"]

[QUOTE="funkyzoom"]

There are times when people need to immediately quit the game and attend to some really important stuff. In such cases, it would be damn frustrating if they have made a lot of progress, and lose that progress when they quit.

Elann2008

Absolutely, especailly when you made that progress engrossed with the setting and wish not to repeat the same action quickly and recklessly just to reach that checkpoint. It leaves bitter taste in allegedly immersive experience.

As for Shadowrun:Returns, do you think they fell before the hype?

I actually prefer auto-saving through checkpoints rather than manual saving. 

Its up to the indivdual to USE THE DAMN FEATURE so i do not understand the argument of OH it makes it easier! An option to disable it in the options menu or how about you just dont manula save and show some restraint. Its a great feature that allows for approaching fun situations a number of ways increasingly complex games. 

jwsoul

Typically...

Manual Saving = Lack of balanced checkpoint system = No option integrated for people who enjoy difficulty (people who typically play videogames)

Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, but it's not really that hard to understand, is it? Manual saving and checkpoint systems aren't mutually exclusive, but it's rare that developers give multiple options on how to save while still providing a balanced experience. I appreciate quick-saving and manual saving and like to have it in my games, but I appreciate it a hell of a lot more if there's some sort of restraint on how often you can save. Want to approach a fun situation in a different way? Play the game again! What need is there to exhaust the game's fun in a single play-through?

STALKER is one of my favorite games of all time, and it has a pretty lame saving system. It has infrequent checkpoints and autosaves so you're forced to save at your own pace. Which pretty means you're saving after every firefight. Which means you can burn through the game, on the hardest difficulty, really easily and fast. I'm not playing games to roleplay a dumber version of myself just so I can have a challenge :lol:  I want games to challenge me, punish me for my mistakes, and teach me to be a better player.

If you can instantly replay and instantly load up at any point at your leisure, you're not being punished and you're not really learning from your mistakes. That's why the developers of the Souls series have racked up serious acclaim with not-so-expansive RPGs -> they learned how to challenge the player. And they didn't do it with manual saving. Are there even any acclaimed difficult games with manual saving?

Anyways, my point is simple: not all games would be fully enjoyable if you could save manually and freely. Sandbox-type games are better suited for it, perhaps some strategy games, but it doesn't really need to be in every game.

Its up to the indivdual to USE THE DAMN FEATURE so i do not understand the argument of OH it makes it easier! An option to disable it in the options menu or how about you just dont manula save and show some restraint. Its a great feature that allows for approaching fun situations a number of ways increasingly complex games. 

jwsoul

I dont think anyone complains about the concept of saving anywhere.

The problem is that manual and quicksaves are usually done in a hamfisted manner as to the games kind of encourage save scumming and whatnot. And when a game encourages (and to some extent, rewards) save scumming you result in a game where the player has no need to learn from his failures or reflect on them, just move slightly to the left, no need to really reflect on what went wrong.

The longer I play since I last saved, the more careful I am due to the my choices getting an ever increasing weight. They also make it so that you are more willing to accept and carry on with mistakes you make, since now you lose a lot of progress if you were to rewind.

IO Interactive:

Hitman: Blood Money - Easy or Casual - Infinite saves (anywhere in the area), Normal - Six (or Seven) Saves per mission. (year 2006)

Hitman: Absolution - Checkpoint system (no manual saves allowed anywhere, on any difficulty level) ? (year 2012)

Eidos : (as publisher)

Deus Ex - Infinite saves anywhere. (year 2000)

Eidos Montreal (published by Square Enix) (year 2011)

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Infinite manual saving implemented, on any difficulty level, anywhere in the area (checkpoint feature also exists) .

Arcane studios:

Arx Fatalis - Manual saving anywhere in the world. (year 2002)

Dishonored - Infinite manual saving, anywhere in the playable area. (year 2012)

2K Games:

Bioshock - INFINITE manual saving, anywhere in the playable area, checkpoint or autosave feature included. (year 2007)

Bioshock Infinite - Autosave feature only. (year 2013)

Ubisoft Montreal :

Splinte Cell: Chaos Theory - Manual saving anywhere durring the mission. (year 2005) (next gen consoles inbound, Xbox 360, PS3)

Splinter Cell: Conviction - Autosave (or checkpoint) system only. (year 2010)

Ubisoft Worldwide:

Splinter Cell: Blacklist - Autosave (or checkpoint) system only. (year 2013) (next gen consoles inbound, Xbox One, PS4)