"Quick Save" should be thrown out of video games.

[NKDietrich]

I think ultimately the people who are against quick save need to justify to the rest of us gamers who play games for fun, and not for a challenge, why our fun should seriously suffer to increase theirs, especially when their problem is internally generated from self control issues. Shouldn't you be the person to suffer from your own self control issues, why should the rest of us?

It would be like me saying we shouldn't have advanced lighting techniques in games because I have no self control over setting my video settings to max, and It becomes unplayable for me at that frame rate. It'd just completely and totally selfish for me to expect everyone else to not have a nicer looking game just because I have no self control.

First, no one is saying that.. well... at least I'm not saying that quick saves need to go out the door entirely. Have them on lower difficulty settings. Besides, it's not so much quick saving as it is unlimited saving whenever you want. Quick save just tends to drive people to hammer it more often. Also in some games it's not that big a deal (say, Skyrim) others (say,Hitman) are almost entirely trivialized by unlimited save-whenever.

Secondly, self control is a pretty piss poor argument because it's up to the game developer to set the challenges and limitations of the base game, not the player. Player-imposed limitations are not balanced for, or around, or accommodated in any way. If people feel that the difficulty curve of modern games is being harmed by a feature, it's up to the developers to see whether there's something they can do to fix it.

For example, telling someone to not use manual saves is all well and good, but if the developers designed the game assuming people were gonna be mashing quicksave every 30 seconds, they might not have put in very good checkpoints/save points.

For me, my concern is about the decreasing scope of challenge in gaming. There's rarely a situation anymore where I go back 15-20 minutes to an older save in order to do the last 15 minutes of the game better. In a modern game, if you fuck up, all you do is hide beyond a box for 10 seconds to regen your health/shields, or quickload if you die.

I miss the sort of gameplay we got in old RPGs with save points. Getting owned and then deciding to get one more level, or maybe fleeing from enemies to conserve resources. Not just rolling back 15 seconds over and over until you win. Again, I believe the scope of the challenge is important, not just its intrinsic moment-to-moment difficulty. There should be slightly protracted segments of gameplay that we are expected to keep our performance and skill up to par for the entire segment, not just for a few seconds at a time. But simply saying "Don't use the saves then!" doesn't work because the games haven't been designed to accommodate that playstyle. Another concern is that in a competitive game where results are compared between players, an even playing field is important. If that "even field" is calibrated to casual players, it becomes uninteresting for the more serious gamer.

 

[ChronoDetector]

Personally I find quick save is useful because some games that use thew autosave feature is complete donkey shit and its not funny, eg. Battlefield 3's autosave is just atrocious, I spent like 10 minutes playing some mission only to fail and I had to restart from the beginning which is annoying, Lost Planet 2's autosave was the worse, I had to restart the entire chapter from the beginning when I was in the third segment. WTF... seriously.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Since when is a well balanced difficulty system exclusive from "fun"? So do you put every single game you play on easy mode... coz I guess its more "fun" that way? So a well balanced save system would impede your joy? It would cause it to "seriously suffer"?

Since people enjoyed games for more than just a challenge, I don't know why this needs to be said AGAIN, some of us just like to play a game and enjoy it like we would enjoy reading a book or watching a movie, we don't see the value in being FORCED to re-read a part of a book, or FORCED to re-watch part of a movie so why should be FORCED to re-play part of a game.

For some of us looking for a nice coherent narrative and immersion quicksave is a much required feature. I'm playing an RPG and I'm the hero and I'm going to save the world, but I die on some stupid boss 20 times I don't feel immersed I feel like im playing a game, I don't feel like a hero who beat the bad guys and saved the day, it's fundamentally ruined as an experience for me, simply because someone else assumes there's value FOR ME, by forcing me to re-do hard sections over and over and over again, it's just complete bullshit.

And calling it a "self control issue" is just an attack at people who actually want something better.

Yes it's an attack because they make the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as them and completely ignore the fact that some of us don't actually value those things as they do, they completely ignore the fact that what they're suggesting de-values the game for other people, they should absolutely be "attacked" on that, especially when their issue stems from a self control problem of not being able to limit their own behavior.

Its amazing how much people attack games for taking the easy way out on so many issues, yet that's all quick saves are doing. Its the developers saying "der, we can't come up with a properly balanced save system and difficulty system, lets just put in quick save instead". Like I said earlier...

Sorry but there's no evidence of this, there's plenty of well balanced games that have quicksave, in fact quicksave was staple in PC games pretty much ever since the FPS genre started up, it's only more recently that checkpoints took over. Quicksave is OPTIONAL, it gives the player to use it at their own discretion, if you think it's imbalanced for whatever reason then just don't bloody well use it. If you LITERALLY cannot stop yourself from using it when you actually desire not to use it, then you need to go see a therapist because there's something wrong with your brain,

There's a big difference between the self imposed challenge of not using a feature that exists in the game to your own detriment and having the game actually designed around not using the feature.

Rubbish, people have been doing this since the dawn of gaming, in fact most of the quriky game modes we have today are those born out of players habits of setting their own unique goals that exist outside the game, good developers actually build on players doing this and expand on it, go somewhere like the thief community and they've built their own rules around "ghosting" missions and various other ways of completing missions with self imposed restrictions, it's been happening successfully for years.

No, that comparison bares very little similarity.

Actually it's a perfect logical analogy, if you disagree then demonstrate where it fails as an analogy.

 

[Tudz]

Since people enjoyed games for more than just a challenge, I don't know why this needs to be said AGAIN, some of us just like to play a game and enjoy it like we would enjoy reading a book or watching a movie, we don't see the value in being FORCED to re-read a part of a book, or FORCED to re-watch part of a movie so why should be FORCED to re-play part of a game.

For some of us looking for a nice coherent narrative and immersion quicksave is a much required feature. I'm playing an RPG and I'm the hero and I'm going to save the world, but I die on some stupid boss 20 times I don't feel immersed I feel like im playing a game, I don't feel like a hero who beat the bad guys and saved the day, it's fundamentally ruined as an experience for me, simply because someone else assumes there's value FOR ME, by forcing me to re-do hard sections over and over and over again, it's just complete bullshit.

You still fail to answer my question. If you'd answered "yes, I play all games on easy because I don't want death to interrupt my gameplay", my response would have been sure, easy mode should have a constant save feature. Some racing games already implement this with "rewind" modes for those playing on lower difficulty settings.

All the things you whinged about in your 2nd paragraph have NOTHING TO DO WITH QUICK/MANUAL SAVING. Its all difficulty complaints.

Read earlier my comments on Star Wars Force Unleashed 2, it had checkpoints but the checkpoints were so close that you really didn't need a quicksave feature. I actually died more often and found the game as a whole more frustrating than the first game, which had its checkpoints further apart. The first game was far less frustrating because its checkpoints and difficulty between checkpoints were better balanced. If you don't want to die 20 times in a row, lower the damned difficulty.

Regarding the "forced to replay segments", well, for one games aren't movies and they aren't books. Drawing comparisons there may be true for some, but isn't for everyone by any measure, secondly... if you want to breeze through games, lower the damned difficulty Quicksaving should be a feature on "Can I play, Daddy?" and "Don't hurt me" difficulty settings.

Yes it's an attack because they make the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as them and completely ignore the fact that some of us don't actually value those things as they do, they completely ignore the fact that what they're suggesting de-values the game for other people, they should absolutely be "attacked" on that, especially when their issue stems from a self control problem of not being able to limit their own behavior.

Do you even know what you want? Play the damned game on easy mode if its such a problem. Oh wait, I'm talking to the person who couldn't deal with the difficulty spikes in TW2 and would rather see the experience devalued for people who like challenging boss fights by making the game a constant difficulty level.

Sorry but there's no evidence of this, there's plenty of well balanced games that have quicksave, in fact quicksave was staple in PC games pretty much ever since the FPS genre started up, it's only more recently that checkpoints took over. Quicksave is OPTIONAL, it gives the player to use it at their own discretion, if you think it's imbalanced for whatever reason then just don't bloody well use it. If you LITERALLY cannot stop yourself from using it when you actually desire not to use it, then you need to go see a therapist because there's something wrong with your brain,

Again, its really not the point that its optional, its that quicksave is a substitute for a well thought out save system. Yes, its been a staple of gaming for a long time, that doesn't mean its a GOOD staple. There are other games for many many years that have used save points and checkpoints as well, to good effect.

Rubbish

Its not rubbish, its basically psychology. I know people can and do have self imposed challenges, but the fact is it IS most definitely different when its actually externally imposed challenge by a well thought out and implemented difficulty system. If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry, but there is most definitely one. There's a big difference between a game which has a well balanced difficulty system and one where the difficulty system has to be created by the gamer's "self control".

Actually it's a perfect logical analogy, if you disagree then demonstrate where it fails as an analogy.

Better graphics are better graphics, a person selfishly being incapable of turning them down is very different to a gameplay feature which affects the way a game flows.

I don't like bloom and HDR in my games. If, however, I can turn them off, I couldn't care less. Have all the bloom and HDR you want, I'll just switch them off.

An actual gameplay feature like quicksaving is a different animal, then it often (and I'm not gonna say always) affects you whether you choose to use them or not. Gameplay "options" and graphics "options" are not the same thing and not directly comparable.

 

[polonyc2]

people are confusing the issue (or exaggerating it to suit their argument)...no one is saying that saves should be eliminated altogether...no one wants to replay the entire game over again or a large chunk of it because of a player death...that's what auto-saves/checkpoints are for...the game periodically saves the game for you...most games implement this feature well

they are usually spaced out well and the few times that they are not add a bit of a challenge to the game...Far Cry 1 had checkpoints and only 1 time did I remember being really annoyed...so again quick saves are for people who want the game to be easy and in that case you need to change the difficulty setting to 'Easy' to accomodate your play style

 

[hfk]

Since when is a well balanced difficulty system exclusive from "fun"? So do you put every single game you play on easy mode... coz I guess its more "fun" that way? So a well balanced save system would impede your joy? It would cause it to "seriously suffer"?

And calling it a "self control issue" is just an attack at people who actually want something better. Its amazing how much people attack games for taking the easy way out on so many issues, yet that's all quick saves are doing. Its the developers saying "der, we can't come up with a properly balanced save system and difficulty system, lets just put in quick save instead". Like I said earlier...

There's a big difference between the self imposed challenge of not using a feature that exists in the game to your own detriment and having the game actually designed around not using the feature.

Its like the old fast travel debate in Bethesda games. You get people crying "just don't use it" as if that's the be all end all argument and somehow its supposed to make people who don't like it shut up about it... we all know how well those arguments go.
No, that comparison bares very little similarity.

How is quick saving cheating? You still have to overcome the same challenges the game presents, only difference is you don't have to waste as much time. What the f is your problem?

 

[DeathPrincess]

Before quicksave goes i'd get rid of STATS in games. Nothing sucks the fun out of gaming more than a bunch of people cheating or being dull just so their k/d ratio goes up 0.0001%. People suddenly think that everything is deadly serious and get all anal about everything, and wont have fun just incase it reflects badly on their "career"...

 

[Tudz]

How is quick saving cheating? You still have to overcome the same challenges the game presents, only difference is you don't have to waste as much time. What the f is your problem?

I think the bigger question is what the f is your problem because you clearly haven't read or comprehended much of what I've posted over the last 2 pages

1. I never claimed it was cheating, and infact said it was the better system for certain genres.
2. I never said it reduced difficulty or challenge. The two are separate yet related topics.
3. I clearly stated that I think if a game makes you unnecessarily repeat large sections with or without quick saves that its a flaw in game design.

 

[Tudz]

Before quicksave goes i'd get rid of STATS in games. Nothing sucks the fun out of gaming more than a bunch of people cheating or being dull just so their k/d ratio goes up 0.0001%. People suddenly think that everything is deadly serious and get all anal about everything, and wont have fun just incase it reflects badly on their "career"...

I dunno, I kinda like stats Though I don't take them all that seriously (have no issue doing some drunken gaming which destroys my KDR ). It was nice during BFBC2 when I started playing and had a KDR of around 0.65 and by the time I stopped playing I had it up to about 1.4, which meant I was consistently doing almost 2 in order to balance the crappy start I had. Always been a pretty aggressive player, I'm the guy who destroys the other team's structure before getting killed and having my team mates take the objectives

Once you start cheating to boost stats it becomes pointless and I really don't understand why people do it. Its completely meaningless and all you do is piss other people off and destroy their stats. The funny thing is, the one guy I know who did hack (as in, knew him personally) was actually an extremely fucking good player, he'd unlocked all the gold weapons in COD4 within a few days without using any hacks and then started using hacks later. Confusing.

 

[DeathPrincess]

I dunno, I kinda like stats Though I don't take them all that seriously (have no issue doing some drunken gaming which destroys my KDR ). It was nice during BFBC2 when I started playing and had a KDR of around 0.65 and by the time I stopped playing I had it up to about 1.4, which meant I was consistently doing almost 2 in order to balance the crappy start I had. Always been a pretty aggressive player, I'm the guy who destroys the other team's structure before getting killed and having my team mates take the objectives

Once you start cheating to boost stats it becomes pointless and I really don't understand why people do it. Its completely meaningless and all you do is piss other people off and destroy their stats. The funny thing is, the one guy I know who did hack (as in, knew him personally) was actually an extremely fucking good player, he'd unlocked all the gold weapons in COD4 within a few days without using any hacks and then started using hacks later. Confusing.

There seems to be loads of crap because of stats. People who will only play on "new player" servers, so they can spend the whole time killing easier players who are less of a challenge so it means they can maintain a higher K/D or whatever. So they will never go and challenge themselves on a normal server and spend the whole time sitting on metro shooting LMGs at doors to prove they are some "pro player" or something because in their mind high numbers = player good, so the whole game becomes raising meaningless "stats".

Even games like Left 4 dead can be a PITA because of stats. People not taking shots unless they are stupid easy headshots so it doesn't decrease their headshot count. It kind of makes all this stat crap unrealistic when so many people are spending the whole time manipulating them. Because you only take 10 shots a match and all of them are headshots doesn't really make someone a decent player, even though you have 100% hit 100% headshot whatever. It just makes them annoying to play with while the rest of the team is pretty much a man down.

There should be single match private stats, with no permanent record. You can go in, screw up as much as you like and it be off the record. I know there are unranked servers, but those usually have some kind of caveat or are practically empty. Games are for fun. Stats aren't fun. Games shouldn't have stats. (it's also a sneaky DRM, but we wont get into that...)

 

[Tudz]

I can see where you're coming from, but I still like persistent stats. I think most the people stat padding are predictable and lacking skill enough for me to not really care about them and they just blend into the regular cannon fodder noobs that make up most the population.

I don't really get why people would stat pad in a game that takes comprehensive stats like BFBC2, as it just stands out. You might have a high KDR but shithouse stats for teamwork and low score per minute. One guy I met while playing BFBC2 I always would give him shit because although he had a similar time played but a higher KDR than me, all his other stats were lower (overall kills, overall deaths, scores per minute and all the teamwork stats). He wasn't stat padding, he just had a more cautious play style than me and I would have a go at him for it Hell, I stopped using the Gustav in BFBC2 because I was worried about copping shit from him that my stats were saying if I had heaps of kills with it.

Stats can be fun, people just need to take them less obsessively, or they need to be taken in such a way that stat padders get singled out for deficiencies in certain areas.

EDIT: Though I should say I don't play L4D either, so maybe its worse in that type of game, stopped playing it because of the terrible experiences I had with the community... and by "community" I mean over-serious-loudmouth-morons.

 

[ninjaturtle]

It seriously takes away the challenge.

Before any of you say something like "well just don't use it then". Well I have no self control.

You should play Ninja Gaiden for the NES then ask yourself again if you don't like quick saves.

 

[Spewn]

An actual gameplay feature like quicksaving is a different animal, then it often (and I'm not gonna say always) affects you whether you choose to use them or not. Gameplay "options" and graphics "options" are not the same thing and not directly comparable.

The problem here is that you don't seem to be arguing for the removal of quicksave, but the improvement of the way games have their difficulty designed in the first place. You haven't provided an example of how adding quicksave to an already well-designed game with appropriate difficulty pacing would somehow mess with your enjoyment of said game; either use quicksave or don't use it. If what you want is games that are designed better, well, I'd argue that quicksave is being used more as a patch over holes in the difficulty system rather than as a reason to make those holes in the first place.

 

[Stiler]

Quick save is 10x less frustrating then save spots where you have to go through a real tough area and then the developers decided "hey, lets not put one here in the middle, lets make them play an hour + though a diffcult fight then go through another!"

Then youdie, and do it over and over and over.

 

[kontact]

PC games traditionally have quicksave because they tend to be harder than console games so are a necessity to avoid frustration. But I recently bought Alan Wake and there is no need for a quicksave (it doesn't have quicksave) in that game because there is no real challenge in the game either.

 

[Tudz]

The problem here is that you don't seem to be arguing for the removal of quicksave, but the improvement of the way games have their difficulty designed in the first place. You haven't provided an example of how adding quicksave to an already well-designed game with appropriate difficulty pacing would somehow mess with your enjoyment of said game; either use quicksave or don't use it. If what you want is games that are designed better, well, I'd argue that quicksave is being used more as a patch over holes in the difficulty system rather than as a reason to make those holes in the first place.

To a large extent yes, that's what I'm on about.

As for saves messing with my enjoyment of a game that is already well designed. Well, I'll use Force Unleashed 1 as an example again. I think that's a game where quick saves on the harder levels would have dampened my enjoyment of it.

I played through on the hardest difficulty, and there were segments like where you have to take on several Rancors in a row, a couple of which have chiefs riding them. It was a pretty tough section which maybe took me 4 or 5 goes to complete. It wasn't a long section by any means, maybe 2 minutes-ish, having the ability to save between the Rancors would have completely trivialised the challenge. The game was also a bit stupid in that a couple of tough sections are preceded by save points right before unskippable cutscenes, but that's another matter

I know I know, just don't use it But the fact is, if the difficulty is trivialised like that, its less enjoyable, I don't know what else to say, it just is.

But you are right, my gripe is more with games with poor difficulty and pacing systems. A game shouldn't need quicksaves, and if it doesn't need it but it still has it, it trivialises the difficulty and so should be limited to use on the easier difficulty levels.

The gamer shouldn't have to invent their own difficulty mode by using or not using features in the game, the game should be properly designed to limit its features or make them available to properly balance the difficulty mode. I couldn't give a shit if you played through the Bioshock with one hand tied behind your back and have no intention of doing it myself, even if it is a way of self imposing difficulty on an otherwise easy game. However, I'll be slightly more impressed if you finished Battletoads with all your effort, and would enjoy the victory much more. The fun is in taking the tools the game gives you and using them to your best advantage to overcome great challenges. There is fun in making up your own challenges too... but its really not the same and for someone like me, its really not nearly as enjoyable.

 

[Nightrainsrt4]

Some games are arguably better games for not having quick saves (Demon's Souls, Dark Souls), but others can benefit from them.

Arguing that developers should design a save system that complements their game is entirely different than saying because I don't want to use something, even though I don't have to, no one should be able to use it either. Because some people can't stop themselves from spamming the key every encounter, other people shouldn't have it available for when they have to stop playing. So instead of being able to quick save and stop, they should have to trek back to the last save, or give up all the progress they've made since.

Beg developers to come up with a save system that complements their game; don't beg them to remove something that is entirely optional.

 

[FearTheCow]

Quick saves should be unnecessary in a game IMO (depending on genre of course, which I mentioned in my previous post). A proper save system should make quick saves needless for most action and adventure games. If a game has you repeating large sections unnecessarily and in a frustrating manner because you don't use quick saves or it doesn't have quick saves, it means the save system (and by extension, the difficulty balancing) is shit.

But in most games, lost time is the only penalty they can implement. If you lose resources, or something else when you fail, people will just reload a save anyway until they don't fail.

I'm not talking about kicking you back an hour or some bullshit like that here. I'm talking about the type of gameplay where people are never more than 30 seconds from their last save. It limits the scope of the challenge, and thus the overall difficulty of the game. What I mean by "scope" of the challenge is basically the time between beginning and end. If you can quicksave whenever, then the scope of a challenge of a boss fight would just be killing the boss. Likely the room will be filled with ammo and health, if applicable, so that someone loading a 30 second old save will never find themselves boned. The alternative is say, having to go through the last 5-10 minutes again, trying to conserve resources so that you go into the boss battle in good shape. Being successful overall doesn't matter when you've got unlimited saves. You only need to be successful 30 seconds at a time.

The example I keep coming back to are the Hitman games. It's pretty stupid easy to get Silent Assassin rating if you're playing on a low difficulty where you can save a bunch. But anyone who wants a challenge plays on the higher difficulties. The act of choloforming 3 guys is not hard. The challenge arises from the fact that you need to move between those guys without being detected and without getting slowed down so that your timing is off and you run into patrols. If you could save after every guy, the challenge would evaporate.

I think this type of challenge could be more common, but we don't see it because game designers have built their games around a kind of ADD approach to gaming where challenges are distinct 30 second affairs rather than protracted "levels" like the old days. That fine-grained approach to the challenge->reward cycle is fine in a casual gaming environment, but it makes a game less rewarding for people looking for fewer, but larger, more complicated challenges that are more rewarding.

I think something along the lines of the game restricting when you can quick save would keep you guys pretty happy, depending on the game of course. A timer that keeps you from quick saving for 30-60 seconds after you kill someone, or not allowing quick saves when you enter certain areas, making you rely on checkpoints.

 

[Tudz]

I think something along the lines of the game restricting when you can quick save would keep you guys pretty happy, depending on the game of course. A timer that keeps you from quick saving for 30-60 seconds after you kill someone, or not allowing quick saves when you enter certain areas, making you rely on checkpoints.

Totally, something like that would be cool. Thoughtful ways to balance the pacing of a game are what I'm interested in. I'm not one for absurdly hard challenges, I just think the pacing of a game is better when it's broken up into sections of multiple encounters you have to get through rather than just being able to save after each enemy you kill. It's not a new concept, many games have used it well in the past.

 

[Spewn]

I know I know, just don't use it But the fact is, if the difficulty is trivialised like that, its less enjoyable, I don't know what else to say, it just is.

I guess I just see choosing the difficulty level at the start of the game and choosing whether or not to quick-save mid-game as very similar choices. The game offers, in both cases, to make the game a bit easier for you; Do you accept or decline this offer? The choice is yours.

 

[MavericK]

The example I keep coming back to are the Hitman games. It's pretty stupid easy to get Silent Assassin rating if you're playing on a low difficulty where you can save a bunch. But anyone who wants a challenge plays on the higher difficulties. The act of choloforming 3 guys is not hard. The challenge arises from the fact that you need to move between those guys without being detected and without getting slowed down so that your timing is off and you run into patrols. If you could save after every guy, the challenge would evaporate.

I think this type of challenge could be more common, but we don't see it because game designers have built their games around a kind of ADD approach to gaming where challenges are distinct 30 second affairs rather than protracted "levels" like the old days. That fine-grained approach to the challenge->reward cycle is fine in a casual gaming environment, but it makes a game less rewarding for people looking for fewer, but larger, more complicated challenges that are more rewarding.

It really depends on the game. In Hitman, sure, being able to quicksave before every guy you take out makes it pretty easy. However, in a game like Skyrim it's nice to be able to quicksave so you don't end up losing too much progress. A few times I've forgotten to save (since there don't really seem to be "checkpoints" other than sometimes when you enter an area) I lost a LOT of progress.

But I agree, checkpoints/saves don't need to be every 30 seconds. But frankly, if I have to redo a part that is about 10-15 minutes or more a few times, I'm going to get pissed off. I don't have endless time to play games and it just feels like time wasted when this happens.

 

[Parmenides]

Some games, saving is mandatory for fear of CTD's

 

[chockomonkey]

DX:HR is one of those games that I spammed quicksave on.. and it did trivialize some of the content... however, on the hardest difficulty, when you can die in a hit, replaying sections gets old.

Same with Skyrim, although less was trivialized.

Tudz has it right--the reason i end up doing this is because i'm not really a "play on the hardest difficulty" kinda guy, but i like a challenge. After the 90s, medium wasn't enough anymore.. and the gap between medium and the hardest difficulty is huge. Try playing Rizen. Awesome game, and one i wanted to play on medium... but i can't stand 0 challenge. It really felt like i was just walking through the game. Pushed it to hard and suddenly had to save after each battle. But i'd rather do that than walk through a game with no challenge.

 

[Spewn]

Pushed it to hard and suddenly had to save after each battle. But i'd rather do that than walk through a game with no challenge.

So you're saying that even though you were able to save quite often, the game was still challenging?

How interesting.

 

[speedrat]

I quite simply do not agree. There are many times when I need to get out of the game and don't want to backtrack. That doesn't mean I don't buy games that don't use quicksave. I just suck it up if I like the game enough. I hate multiplayer, so should I ask that be removed from the game just because I don't like it?

Ridiculous.

 

[chockomonkey]

So you're saying that even though you were able to save quite often, the game was still challenging?

How interesting.

Indeed!

/thread

 

[magoo]

Quick Save is a very nice tool in any game, IMHO.

I can't say enough times how infuriating it is to be one stride away from completing your task, maybe one that has taken 30 minutes or more of cautious gameplay, sneaking around in the dark......whatever.....and get down to your last drop of health, and by some miracle you get pegged.........and back you go.

I've plain quit games 90% through because I got tired of rinse and repeat cycles where some retarded manuever had to be accomplished.......just right......totally separated from the reality of the game......in order to finish.

A simple save would have allowed me to complete the task and the game without losing my temper out of frustration.

There's a difference between difficulty and tedium...........

 

[heelix]

I like the quick save. Doing a normal save - jumping out of a game, hitting a menu, then going back - is a pain. Checkpoint saving is infuriating. 30min to an hour of undisturbed gaming time is really rare. I can't be the only gamer with a family + dog.