Saving and Reloading in games

hamster

Are we losing part of the fun of completing game? In other words - do constant saves and reloads take away from a game? There you are, dying, again, in a tough part of Wolfenstein for 20th time. You reload and kill the sniper that you now already know about since your previous death. Does this scenario dampen your achievement or sense of real danger? Or how about when you get killed it means nothing? Or that you may take a stupid risk before you know you can just reload?
If you knew you really just had one chance, wouldn't you slow down and think about it or maybe hesitate and plan an alternative strategy or revisit that area later? ie, Commandoes?

Long ago you probably remember playing games where you didn't get a chance to save your progress. You either made it or didn't (or the power went!). Rainbow Islands for one. Having to get the Colour gems in the right order for example. How many times did you have to play the game to do this?

Looking back at it, I had more time to waste then than now so I tend to rush games and not think about it too long. Although I find myself in first person shooters saving a wee bit to much methinks. Initially it was to save the game before it crashed or the before the power goes. Maybe it would be better to say "you save twice in this level and that's it" or you can auto-save once every 20-30 minutes.

I think about this since in Rogue playing games.. you can save but you can't (shouldn't) reload dead characters. Once they are dead they are dead for good. The loss is real, the progress dramatic and ultimate success is breath-taking. I remember playing one character on and off for weeks only to see her die. It was tramatic!

On the C64 I remember such games as The Great Escape - where you have escaped after playing the game non-stop for maybe 3-4 hours without any serious slip-ups and survive. That was a wow! I guess today - the simpler scrolling SHMUP's would come close to the must survive - can't save and reload there.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I agree, it really kills the sense of tension.
Although I like to be able to come and go as I please... not having to "just finish this bit so I can save".

Although some games are just boring and frustrating, so I'm more than happy to use save/load to get past some part of the game that's just plain píssing me off because the enemy AI is so poorly written that I'm getting shot through the floor from an enemy downstairs. (*cough* Project IGI *cough*)

I think a cool idea would be to use your in-game money to buy savepoints during levels... I liked Tomb Raiders crystal save system, where you could either save as soon as you got to it, or leave it there until you did some other stuff, it was a kind of risky trade-off... added something nice to the game IMO.

Jazzy

the original avp had it absolutely PERFECT imo
Doom 3 would have been twice the game without saving and quick saves

Creamy Goodness

yeh but with doom3 you didn't need to save cause all you had to do was.

take out flashlight >> run round corner >> take out gun >> shoot enemy that comes out of wall/or appears >> repeat 10000 times.

saving does take away from the tension of a game but it also depends on the game that's being played

Zillah

Are you serious?! Games that didn't let me save whenever I wanted annoyed the hell out of me. So, If I don't manage to accomplish this difficult task then I have to do the same thirty minutes of game play again?! And again if I don't get past that one door/trap/guard. And if I fail it again I have to repeat the entire freaking thing again?

No. Thank. You.

hamster

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Although some games are just boring and frustrating, so I'm more than happy to use save/load to get past some part of the game that's just plain píssing me off because the enemy AI is so poorly

Yep, some games are so annoying that you don't care for some sections in that there is no sense of enjoyment in it at all getting through it.

PixelTrawler

two games that got the checkpoint system right in recent times are Far Cry and Call of Duty 2. You really have to want to keep going though so they need to be killer titles.

If a games not up to it though the absence of a quick save system will destroy it through sheer annoyance.

theres pros and cons to it. If you can quick save you are more inclined to take risks and explore which can be a good thing and the other hand it can take some of the sense of achievement out of it.

I normally prefer quick save, but i find Call of Duty 2 more satisfying to get through than COD1 just because it seems more of an accomplishment to reach the checkpoints without dying.

However sometimes in games like GTA you might get stuck on a level and you have to repeat the whole thing each time which can get to the point you just leave it.

I guess theres no clear answer to which is the better option, if it fits well into the game design then either can work well.

sprinkles

Cremo wrote:

yeh but with doom3 you didn't need to save cause all you had to do was.

take out flashlight >> run round corner >> take out gun >> shoot enemy that comes out of wall/or appears >> repeat 10000 times.

saving does take away from the tension of a game but it also depends on the game that's being played

So true

I like having the option to save when I want but there is the tendancy to abuse the power. I try to play the games through with out "cheating" but if you do hit a particulary hard bit and a sniper takes you out you can't help but approach that senario the next time with extra caution. It does ruin the tension but its unavoidable.

Crucifix

I'm generally pretty bad at games and also tend to decide to stop playing fairly spur-of-the-moment, so for the most part I like to have a good save function.

Niall - Dahlia

I'm really bad for this in FPSs and RPGs. HL2 I'd quicksave after just about every encounter...sometimes even after entering and exiting a single room. :rolleyes: Baldur's Gate...constant quick saving.

It does ruin the tension I guess, but I'm not much one for tension in games. Plus I don't want the frustration of having to do play through long sections of a game repeatedly.

Save points are ok in games. I perfer some kind of "save wherever you want but a limited number of times" system. Or alternatively, God Mode.

hamster

Niall - Dahlia wrote:

It does ruin the tension I guess, but I'm not much one for tension in games. Plus I don't want the frustration of having to do play through long sections of a game repeatedly.

Yep, I find myself rushing through a game because I have to finish it before the end of the Christmas break or whatever because I know otherwise I may never get back to it etc. It's also annoying to have to replay an entire section again because it's really lack of time these days. Although it creates tension if you know what I mean... like a non-resumable 20Hr download that's 90% done and that could crash at any moment. Ha!

BlitzKrieg

two games that got the checkpoint system right in recent times are Far Cry and Call of Duty 2.

i can vouch for these a good bit.

personnally i never bothered much with quick save, except when i am messing around. For the most part autosaves work fine and i'd only quick save if i was shutting down.

Strangely what i find puts a damper on my gaming is obtrusive autosaves, with call of duty 2 its fine, but with FEAR it was in your face saving (which always killed my computer). And straight away i knew trouble was around the next corner and it as much as quick save killed the experiance for me, everytime it saved i grenaded the next room. and 8 times out of 10 i would be right. (though FEAR is cheap in that the bad guys only spawn after you pass a certain point i think, so always a few sneaking around)

Tusky

With games like the old mario, the gameplay was addicitve and fun enough to play over and over....this is not so with games of today, so im glad of the the option to save and reload.

monument

Niall - Dahlia wrote:

It does ruin the tension I guess, but I'm not much one for tension in games. Plus I don't want the frustration of having to do play through long sections of a game repeatedly.

Yeah, there's the danger of losing the tension, but that's better then frustration as you said. I, err, third COD2 for doing a pritty good job.

Rnger

trying to finish all the levels on 00 agent in Goldeneye. Imagine that with quicksaves

Jazzy

Rnger wrote:

trying to finish all the levels on 00 agent in Goldeneye. Imagine that with quicksaves

best point on this thread

Branoic

hamster wrote:

Or how about when you get killed it means nothing? Or that you may take a stupid risk before you know you can just reload?
If you knew you really just had one chance, wouldn't you slow down and think about it or maybe hesitate and plan an alternative strategy or revisit that area later?

Sorry, I don't agree. I like saving often and regularly.

1) I don't want the fact that I die to mean very much at all, other than that I messed up and should try again. Consider the differences in dying in EVE and dying in WoW - I'd much prefer the WoW approach. To invest so much time and money and effort and sweat into your ship in EVE and then to lose it all (well, not all if its insured, but you still lose a damn lot) just ruins it.

2) I *like* taking stupid risks. People play games, especially FPS, for the "action hero" thrill, for pulling off mad stunts and taking insane risks. Most of the time, they don't work on the first attempt, because, well, most gamers aren't that good. But they should still be able to try, they should still take those stupid risks and try to pull them off.

3) Having just one chance and slowing down and taking your time might heighten the tension, but it would kill any sense of fun. For most casual gamers anyway. Thats why quicksaves etc should be available. The hardcore gamers who want more of a challenge can just restrain themselves and just not save their game. That way, when they finally do get killed, they can enjoy having to do it all over again.

RotalicaV

I wouldn't know, i don't save and i don't die.

jaggeh

RotalicaV wrote:

I wouldn't know, i don't save and i don't die.

lies and you know it.

the save function does a lot for gaming, more good than bad.

imagine getting to a point in a game that you enjoyed so much that you wanted to repeat.

One of my friends had a save at every light sabre weilding enemy in JK2

having to leave the house, save and come back.

then theres always the dreaded powercut, i dont know how many times i had to play through certain games because of lack of save.

may it never leave us.

djkeogh

RotalicaV wrote:

I wouldn't know, i don't save and i don't die.

There's always the one eh?

eyerer

hamster wrote:

Rainbow Islands for one. Having to get the Colour gems in the right order for example. How many times did you have to play the game to do this?

currently playing this game. I've got a handful of pc games and gc games unfinished but i like the pick up and playablity of this game.

Never did manage to get the gems in the right order though, for all islands and to complete it.
last time i played it, i spent so much time trying to get the right crystals that i could no longer complete the game