Is the inability to save anywhere a lazy way to up the difficulty of a game?

You know I have noticed that alot of games these days allow you to save wherever you want... alot of people think this makes a game easier, but I'm not sure. It makes a game alot less frustrating to me. Personally, I think all games should have a save anywhere feature. And I won't be hyp[ocritical about this. Some of my favorite games ever lack this feature. While I love me a good JRPG, I think alot of them could learn from Pokemon in that allowing you to save anywhere can make a game far less frustrating.

What say you SW?

play JRPGs on the PC and you can have the most accurate saves you'll ever see.

play JRPGs on the PC and you can have the most accurate saves you'll ever see.

rasengan2552

I'm not a PC gamer, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PC have far less JRPG's when compared to consoles and handhelds?

Funny, most games in the past had the save anywhere system. It was only up until recently [3-5 years] that the checkpoint saving system started becoming super popular. I hate the checkpoint saving system.ShadowDeathX

To me, the checkpoint system is even worse than either of the other two ways of saving the game. A game that only has checkpoints is kind of frustrating. And before any PC gamer says anything, I am fully aware that many games on PC have both.)

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

play JRPGs on the PC and you can have the most accurate saves you'll ever see.

turtlethetaffer

I'm not a PC gamer, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PC have far less JRPG's when compared to consoles and handhelds?

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"][QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Funny, most games in the past had the save anywhere system. It was only up until recently [3-5 years] that the checkpoint saving system started becoming super popular. I hate the checkpoint saving system.ShadowDeathX

I still need to really get into it. I have played for a few hours, pretty good so far.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Funny, most games in the past had the save anywhere system. It was only up until recently [3-5 years] that the checkpoint saving system started becoming super popular. I hate the checkpoint saving system.turtlethetaffer

To me, the checkpoint system is even worse than either of the other two ways of saving the game. A game that only has checkpoints is kind of frustrating. And before any PC gamer says anything, I am fully aware that many games on PC have both.)

I really don't get why there is a need for it, I hate it so much. Most of the games that use it are linear checkpoint to checkpoint games.Soo idk...these types of games keep getting more popular, so maybe that is why the system is getting popular as well.

This system is far worse than the save anywhere system and the near-base save system found in many open-world games.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Funny, most games in the past had the save anywhere system. It was only up until recently [3-5 years] that the checkpoint saving system started becoming super popular. I hate the checkpoint saving system.ShadowDeathX

To me, the checkpoint system is even worse than either of the other two ways of saving the game. A game that only has checkpoints is kind of frustrating. And before any PC gamer says anything, I am fully aware that many games on PC have both.)

I really don't get why there is a need for it, I hate it so much. Most of the games that use it are linear checkpoint to checkpoint games.Soo idk...these types of games keep getting more popular, so maybe that is why the system is getting popular as well.

This system is far worse than the save anywhere system and the near-base save system found in many open-world games.

You know, I think that a game with Save Points (ie Lost Odyssey) can work if the points are placed close enough together. For instance, in Radiant Historia on DS, the save points are all pretty close together, so that if you die you won't lose too much progress. (there are of course a few exceptions because no game is perfect.) So, honestly, I think that a save point system can work depending on the spacing.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

To me, the checkpoint system is even worse than either of the other two ways of saving the game. A game that only has checkpoints is kind of frustrating. And before any PC gamer says anything, I am fully aware that many games on PC have both.)

turtlethetaffer

I really don't get why there is a need for it, I hate it so much. Most of the games that use it are linear checkpoint to checkpoint games.Soo idk...these types of games keep getting more popular, so maybe that is why the system is getting popular as well.

This system is far worse than the save anywhere system and the near-base save system found in many open-world games.

You know, I think that a game with Save Points (ie Lost Odyssey) can work if the points are placed close enough together. For instance, in Radiant Historia on DS, the save points are all pretty close together, so that if you die you won't lose too much progress. (there are of course a few exceptions because no game is perfect.) So, honestly, I think that a save point system can work depending on the spacing.

You know I have noticed that alot of games these days allow you to save wherever you want... alot of people think this makes a game easier, but I'm not sure. It makes a game alot less frustrating to me. Personally, I think all games should have a save anywhere feature. And I won't be hyp[ocritical about this. Some of my favorite games ever lack this feature. While I love me a good JRPG, I think alot of them could learn from Pokemon in that allowing you to save anywhere can make a game far less frustrating.

What say you SW?

turtlethetaffer

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

You know I have noticed that alot of games these days allow you to save wherever you want... alot of people think this makes a game easier, but I'm not sure. It makes a game alot less frustrating to me. Personally, I think all games should have a save anywhere feature. And I won't be hyp[ocritical about this. Some of my favorite games ever lack this feature. While I love me a good JRPG, I think alot of them could learn from Pokemon in that allowing you to save anywhere can make a game far less frustrating.

What say you SW?

AppleJudgement

If the autosaves are good, then it's fine and can keep people from cheeseing the game by quicksaving every half second.

If the autosaves are super far apart (crysis 2) then it's infuriating.

I wish batman arkham city had quicksaves or a not in combat save option simply because it's a pain in the ass to find a door or something to walk through so the game will save.

When it's well implemented - I prefer the checkpoint system.

I don't think there's a general rule for this, it really depends on how the save system, whatever it is, is implemented, and on game balance.

For convenience's sake, I appreciate the ability to quicksave anywhere.

However, sometimes checkpoints are a good way to create tension, because you know that you are are not allowed to mess up during a certain portion of the game. It forces you to show skill, and that's a good thing.

One recent example I could mention is Hard Reset : some players complained about the absence of quicksaving, I personnally think the devs made the right choice. It brings some interesting challenge to the game.

I wholehartedly agree TC, an I do think that there is some semblense of lazyness involved, ESPECIALLY with we talk about any RPG in general.

The odd thing is that one would assume that it is a console weakness, but last gen it was pretty standard to both have autosave and manual save on console.

I am not sure why Devs found it a brilliant idea to do so. In short games savepoints does not annoy me all that much, but in larger games? Oooh the agony -.-

. While I love me a good JRPG, I think alot of them could learn from Pokemon in that allowing you to save anywhere can make a game far less frustrating.

What say you SW?

turtlethetaffer

um its not a matter of lazy or not its a perfectly valid method of game design saving anywhere could potentionally break quite a few games regardless of their difficulty achieved through other means.

I think its a necessity in some games like Bioshock and Half-Life, but in others it might negate the challenge.

I mean, look at Dark Souls. The game automatically saves wherever you leave the game at, but if you could reload the save when you died it would be cheap, so the auto save system makes the game the way it is.

In Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising 2, the goal is survival so saving ANYWHERE at ANYTIME would take away any sense of tension or gratification whatsoever.

So it depends on the game.

it doesn't bother me. The only save system that really frustrates me is the checkpoint system. I like being able to back track, and I hate it when I don't kill the enemies at a checkpoint, and when I die it starts me at the checkpoint after the battle - as in it automatically advances me through the game. There's just a bunch of issues with that type of system.

For some games I like the inability to save anywhere. It adds consequence for failure, for others like Pokemon and Skyrim however, checkpoints would be terrible. It is simply choosing what would work best for the game you are developing.

Cheesing the save feature can utterly ruin the difficulty in some games, especially X-Com.

I think a save system is what Halo and Call of Duty really need.

In both games, the need for checkpoints was probably more rooted in limitations for last gen consoles.

Now though, I don't see why they can't have a mix of the two. In Call of Duty, there are times in a level where they refuse to save, even after killing dozens of enemies and moving forward like 30 minutes, I don't get one until I push the stupid button I reached ten times, because I need to push it, not reach it.

I like how Demon's Souls/Dark Souls save system works. Everything gets saved automatically (without crappy save/load screens), and it kinda forces you to stick with choices you make in-game (as opposed to how in Dragon Age Origins, I could re-load if a persuasion didn't work or if a choice didn't really turn out how I liked). I think a 'save anywhere' feature gives too much control to the player, although it is better than most other ways. Plus I get OCD when I can save anywhere anytime.

Dues Ex was surprising as you could save during boss fights. That felt so weird.

Yeah, it is. Take first person shooters, for example. Nearly every fps that only uses a checkpoint system has at least one difficulty spike due to a badly placed checkpoint. Be it Crysis 2, Metro 2033 (which actually had a lot of those moments), FEAR 2, AvP 2010 or even Call of Duty games (like the ferris wheel in MW). When bad enough, the absence of quicksave can partially ruin a game as it turns entire segments of a game into frustrating trial & error sessions. Case in point: Mirror's Edge. Another advantage of quicksave is that it allows for more experimentation: you can save at a certain point and tackle a certain situation in different ways to see how the game reacts. I used to do this a lot in the first Crysis, hence why I was REALLY bothered by the lack of quicksave in Crysis 2.

At this point, there is almost no reason not to have quicksave. Even if you think it makes the game too easy or cheap, it can still coexist with a checkpoint system so that players who insist on playing the same 5-10 minutes of a game over and over again (:P) can ignore the function.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="rasengan2552"] I think they should stop using them in RPGs. Period. I remember playing Lost Odyssey earlier this gen and some save points where so far apart it was ridiculous.turtlethetaffer

I still need to really get into it. I have played for a few hours, pretty good so far.

um its not a matter of lazy or not its a perfectly valid method of game design saving anywhere could potentionally break quite a few games regardless of their difficulty achieved through other means.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

um its not a matter of lazy or not its a perfectly valid method of game design saving anywhere could potentionally break quite a few games regardless of their difficulty achieved through other means.

AppleJudgement

It doesn't take special effort to "up the difficulty" in general. They can just give you less HP, make enemies do more damage, remove some health packs or whatever, so it's a big no on that one.

The hard part is to balance the difficulty and learning curve. This is actually one of the fundamental aspects of a game to me. Some get wowed by graphics, other's by a story's premise, I get a turnon when the game is perfectly optimised especially if the level design is awesome too.

It could be a technical limitation or a design choice. It just doesn't make sense to "save state". I would prefer to start from the begining of a level or at a save point instead of getting right into a heated firefight as I just load up the game.

It only annoys me for some games. Metroidvania games shouldn't have them for instance.

Not really. If the game mechanics are easy you won't have problem on finding another save spot. If the game is already hard by itself then yes.

The most annoying thing about save points in JRPGs is that they are normally before epically long cutscenes that are unskippable and are proceeded by a difficult boss. So you end up watching the cutscene over and over or THROWING IT OUT THE F*CKING WINDOW.

Not exactly. Even if a game had a save anywhere feature, the game's difficulty, if it's present, wouldn't change. The only difference is that with the save anywhere feature, one may accidently save in a difficult to near impossible situation without anyway to go back to a previous save aside from starting the whole game over. This doesn't describe every game, but certain games can include this problem if it doesn't use a good save feature.

If not including a save anyway feature is the only way for a developer to increase the difficulty, then the game probably isn't hard in the first place.

At least you can't say that about Dark Souls because you can quit the game at anytime and it will resume in the exact place where you left >.>

[QUOTE="AppleJudgement"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

um its not a matter of lazy or not its a perfectly valid method of game design saving anywhere could potentionally break quite a few games regardless of their difficulty achieved through other means.

BrunoBRS

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

um its not a matter of lazy or not its a perfectly valid method of game design saving anywhere could potentionally break quite a few games regardless of their difficulty achieved through other means.

AppleJudgement

That's why you keep multiple savegames.

The lack of saving anywhere is what bugs me about the Dragon Quest series. I have heard it is for the old school feel but I see it as an inconvience of not using technology that we have.

The lack of saving anywhere is what bugs me about the Dragon Quest series. I have heard it is for the old school feel but I see it as an inconvience of not using technology that we have.

farslip

You little *****.

Man up and go hunt those slimes.