The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Saving? Not the most important side of gaming now is it but saving is not as easy as some might think. There are many forms to choose from:
1: No save
Ok I ask why? Why do games not include a save feature? Lylat Wars N64, ok not the hardest game but I love kicking Star Wolf! But each time I turn the game off I have to get there again! Jurassic Park SNES! This game may not be the biggest game but it takes up the best part of a day to finish and this game has the most annoying in game glitch ever, by backing into a few wars on the ship level you get stuck in the wall! That’s the second to final level and once you have got there you feel so proud and then you get stuck!
Enough about my bad experiences mind but no save features are a definite no, no developers should use it.
2. Save anywhere
Pokémon style! Anytime anywhere, extremely useful style of saving, much more realistic as well. We save to eat, to go out like a long pause so to be able to start exactly where you left off! Now it won’t work in games with tiny levels, it will be too easy so instead there is:
3. Saving at the end of each level
Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Body harvest the majority of games implement this but not always with the best intensions. The latter Body Harvest is a HUGE game and HARD as well now this game could have done with a save at any point function. The levels are huge! And getting to the very end only to get killed is extremely frustrating we could be sorted out with a save at any point system so why didn’t they use it? Because it makes games harder and last longer! This is a cheap move from the developers in order to make games last longer, if saving at any point makes it too easy and at the end of each level to hard why not use:
4. Checkpoints
Most obviously used in Turok 3 and more discreetly in Conker. At certain points in the game, after a certain mission or and area the game saves. In Conker after you get past the Birdy bit it saves, once you get the hive back it saves. In Turok 3 once you have got past the sewers it saves, after you get into the museum it saves etc… It means a small area has to be completed before things can save. This can be done automatically and manually and it saves when you pick things up or beat a boss or enter a new level etc…
Zelda ocarina of time on the N64 used this but not the second no that used:
5: Save points
It isn’t a bad idea, saving your game at a statue or book etc… Resident Evil is a good example and if you don’t have time to reach the next one then try to get to the last one. It is also a cheap trick to make the games last longer but isn’t quite as frustrating as Saving at the end of each level can be. Now not all games should use this a.k.a Zelda Majora’s Mask! It’s main fault is the saving at a save point or going back in time. In Ocarina of Time I used to save every time I did something but in Majora’s Mask and going to a save point that could be miles away would be a waste of time and going back in time erases what you did. Then your game crashes, you could have been at the end of one of the games huge dungeons and it suddenly freezes (this happened to me) and now you have to do it again! Zelda is a big game and so I believe the save at any time or checkpoint method would be much more useful.
Well these methods are used be it Memory cards or in Cart and there is many more but which will be the more widely used in the future? The future of saving ah? Interesting one I believe as games are getting much bigger checkpoints and save anywhere methods will be a more useful approach. Developers shouldn’t result to reducing save opportunities to make the games last longer; if games have problems then it should be sorted in a more constructive way. And throwing in more enemies isn’t the only other way to make them last longer or become harder!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
1: No save
Ok I ask why? Why do games not include a save feature? Lylat Wars N64, ok not the hardest game but I love kicking Star Wolf! But each time I turn the game off I have to get there again! Jurassic Park SNES! This game may not be the biggest game but it takes up the best part of a day to finish and this game has the most annoying in game glitch ever, by backing into a few wars on the ship level you get stuck in the wall! That’s the second to final level and once you have got there you feel so proud and then you get stuck!
Enough about my bad experiences mind but no save features are a definite no, no developers should use it.
2. Save anywhere
Pokémon style! Anytime anywhere, extremely useful style of saving, much more realistic as well. We save to eat, to go out like a long pause so to be able to start exactly where you left off! Now it won’t work in games with tiny levels, it will be too easy so instead there is:
3. Saving at the end of each level
Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Body harvest the majority of games implement this but not always with the best intensions. The latter Body Harvest is a HUGE game and HARD as well now this game could have done with a save at any point function. The levels are huge! And getting to the very end only to get killed is extremely frustrating we could be sorted out with a save at any point system so why didn’t they use it? Because it makes games harder and last longer! This is a cheap move from the developers in order to make games last longer, if saving at any point makes it too easy and at the end of each level to hard why not use:
4. Checkpoints
Most obviously used in Turok 3 and more discreetly in Conker. At certain points in the game, after a certain mission or and area the game saves. In Conker after you get past the Birdy bit it saves, once you get the hive back it saves. In Turok 3 once you have got past the sewers it saves, after you get into the museum it saves etc… It means a small area has to be completed before things can save. This can be done automatically and manually and it saves when you pick things up or beat a boss or enter a new level etc…
Zelda ocarina of time on the N64 used this but not the second no that used:
5: Save points
It isn’t a bad idea, saving your game at a statue or book etc… Resident Evil is a good example and if you don’t have time to reach the next one then try to get to the last one. It is also a cheap trick to make the games last longer but isn’t quite as frustrating as Saving at the end of each level can be. Now not all games should use this a.k.a Zelda Majora’s Mask! It’s main fault is the saving at a save point or going back in time. In Ocarina of Time I used to save every time I did something but in Majora’s Mask and going to a save point that could be miles away would be a waste of time and going back in time erases what you did. Then your game crashes, you could have been at the end of one of the games huge dungeons and it suddenly freezes (this happened to me) and now you have to do it again! Zelda is a big game and so I believe the save at any time or checkpoint method would be much more useful.
Well these methods are used be it Memory cards or in Cart and there is many more but which will be the more widely used in the future? The future of saving ah? Interesting one I believe as games are getting much bigger checkpoints and save anywhere methods will be a more useful approach. Developers shouldn’t result to reducing save opportunities to make the games last longer; if games have problems then it should be sorted in a more constructive way. And throwing in more enemies isn’t the only other way to make them last longer or become harder!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Page:
Arcades are a different matter.
No save features is what makes the Arcades appeal so much, you pay your money, and that's it, once your time is up or you're dead, that's it, you've got to start again.
Before memory became so cheap, saving was not an option on most games, you had to play and play and either be good and win (you got there in the end because of all the practice you did on the early levels), or you had to play and play and hope it didn't crash.
Today, with cheap memory, saving is the norm. It HAS to be, considering some of the epic sizes that games have grown to. However, there is a LOT of fun to be had, still, with games that don't have a save feature.
Silent Scope, for example is a fast paced Snipe 'em up for the DC, and is a direct port from the arcade version. It saves your stats for you, but you can't save between levels, you've just gotta be prepared to go for it and practice practice practice.
Fortunately for the DC version they also added a Time Attack mode where you could practice getting your time down on each level, so it's not all bad, and you don't just have to keep going at level one until you've beaten it to start all over again with level two and back again.
As for saving in the future, the XBox has quite a large internal hard drive, making you wonder what exactly it is going to be used for, considering that both Microsoft and Mad Katz have both brought out standard 8-Meg memory cards for the console as well. I suspect it's for downloading extra levels to existing XBox games, or new data, characters, weapons etc as you can with the Dreamcast, but on a much larger scale.
Not to mention demos, new games and so on, although the idea of buying a game electronically and having it stored on a hard drive with no 'hard' backup copy is a little unnerving.
PS2 will also have a hard drive addon, again no mention has been given as to whether this will be used for pure game saves or for extra levels later on, I suspect the latter, leaving the game saves for the peripheral memory cards.
I think in the end it comes down to options, Metal Gear Solid without a save feature would have been a drawback considering it takes two hours to complete, not exactly a pick up and play game, but there IS the option of playing it without saves to gain extra rankings, same with the Resident Evil series, so Konami and Capcom seem to have done it right, the choice is there for gamers, which can only be a good thing, I just wish more developers took note.
Before memory became so cheap, saving was not an option on most games, you had to play and play and either be good and win (you got there in the end because of all the practice you did on the early levels), or you had to play and play and hope it didn't crash.
Today, with cheap memory, saving is the norm. It HAS to be, considering some of the epic sizes that games have grown to. However, there is a LOT of fun to be had, still, with games that don't have a save feature.
Silent Scope, for example is a fast paced Snipe 'em up for the DC, and is a direct port from the arcade version. It saves your stats for you, but you can't save between levels, you've just gotta be prepared to go for it and practice practice practice.
Fortunately for the DC version they also added a Time Attack mode where you could practice getting your time down on each level, so it's not all bad, and you don't just have to keep going at level one until you've beaten it to start all over again with level two and back again.
As for saving in the future, the XBox has quite a large internal hard drive, making you wonder what exactly it is going to be used for, considering that both Microsoft and Mad Katz have both brought out standard 8-Meg memory cards for the console as well. I suspect it's for downloading extra levels to existing XBox games, or new data, characters, weapons etc as you can with the Dreamcast, but on a much larger scale.
Not to mention demos, new games and so on, although the idea of buying a game electronically and having it stored on a hard drive with no 'hard' backup copy is a little unnerving.
PS2 will also have a hard drive addon, again no mention has been given as to whether this will be used for pure game saves or for extra levels later on, I suspect the latter, leaving the game saves for the peripheral memory cards.
I think in the end it comes down to options, Metal Gear Solid without a save feature would have been a drawback considering it takes two hours to complete, not exactly a pick up and play game, but there IS the option of playing it without saves to gain extra rankings, same with the Resident Evil series, so Konami and Capcom seem to have done it right, the choice is there for gamers, which can only be a good thing, I just wish more developers took note.
Saving? Not the most important side of gaming now is it but saving is not as easy as some might think. There are many forms to choose from:
1: No save
Ok I ask why? Why do games not include a save feature? Lylat Wars N64, ok not the hardest game but I love kicking Star Wolf! But each time I turn the game off I have to get there again! Jurassic Park SNES! This game may not be the biggest game but it takes up the best part of a day to finish and this game has the most annoying in game glitch ever, by backing into a few wars on the ship level you get stuck in the wall! That’s the second to final level and once you have got there you feel so proud and then you get stuck!
Enough about my bad experiences mind but no save features are a definite no, no developers should use it.
2. Save anywhere
Pokémon style! Anytime anywhere, extremely useful style of saving, much more realistic as well. We save to eat, to go out like a long pause so to be able to start exactly where you left off! Now it won’t work in games with tiny levels, it will be too easy so instead there is:
3. Saving at the end of each level
Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Body harvest the majority of games implement this but not always with the best intensions. The latter Body Harvest is a HUGE game and HARD as well now this game could have done with a save at any point function. The levels are huge! And getting to the very end only to get killed is extremely frustrating we could be sorted out with a save at any point system so why didn’t they use it? Because it makes games harder and last longer! This is a cheap move from the developers in order to make games last longer, if saving at any point makes it too easy and at the end of each level to hard why not use:
4. Checkpoints
Most obviously used in Turok 3 and more discreetly in Conker. At certain points in the game, after a certain mission or and area the game saves. In Conker after you get past the Birdy bit it saves, once you get the hive back it saves. In Turok 3 once you have got past the sewers it saves, after you get into the museum it saves etc… It means a small area has to be completed before things can save. This can be done automatically and manually and it saves when you pick things up or beat a boss or enter a new level etc…
Zelda ocarina of time on the N64 used this but not the second no that used:
5: Save points
It isn’t a bad idea, saving your game at a statue or book etc… Resident Evil is a good example and if you don’t have time to reach the next one then try to get to the last one. It is also a cheap trick to make the games last longer but isn’t quite as frustrating as Saving at the end of each level can be. Now not all games should use this a.k.a Zelda Majora’s Mask! It’s main fault is the saving at a save point or going back in time. In Ocarina of Time I used to save every time I did something but in Majora’s Mask and going to a save point that could be miles away would be a waste of time and going back in time erases what you did. Then your game crashes, you could have been at the end of one of the games huge dungeons and it suddenly freezes (this happened to me) and now you have to do it again! Zelda is a big game and so I believe the save at any time or checkpoint method would be much more useful.
Well these methods are used be it Memory cards or in Cart and there is many more but which will be the more widely used in the future? The future of saving ah? Interesting one I believe as games are getting much bigger checkpoints and save anywhere methods will be a more useful approach. Developers shouldn’t result to reducing save opportunities to make the games last longer; if games have problems then it should be sorted in a more constructive way. And throwing in more enemies isn’t the only other way to make them last longer or become harder!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
1: No save
Ok I ask why? Why do games not include a save feature? Lylat Wars N64, ok not the hardest game but I love kicking Star Wolf! But each time I turn the game off I have to get there again! Jurassic Park SNES! This game may not be the biggest game but it takes up the best part of a day to finish and this game has the most annoying in game glitch ever, by backing into a few wars on the ship level you get stuck in the wall! That’s the second to final level and once you have got there you feel so proud and then you get stuck!
Enough about my bad experiences mind but no save features are a definite no, no developers should use it.
2. Save anywhere
Pokémon style! Anytime anywhere, extremely useful style of saving, much more realistic as well. We save to eat, to go out like a long pause so to be able to start exactly where you left off! Now it won’t work in games with tiny levels, it will be too easy so instead there is:
3. Saving at the end of each level
Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Body harvest the majority of games implement this but not always with the best intensions. The latter Body Harvest is a HUGE game and HARD as well now this game could have done with a save at any point function. The levels are huge! And getting to the very end only to get killed is extremely frustrating we could be sorted out with a save at any point system so why didn’t they use it? Because it makes games harder and last longer! This is a cheap move from the developers in order to make games last longer, if saving at any point makes it too easy and at the end of each level to hard why not use:
4. Checkpoints
Most obviously used in Turok 3 and more discreetly in Conker. At certain points in the game, after a certain mission or and area the game saves. In Conker after you get past the Birdy bit it saves, once you get the hive back it saves. In Turok 3 once you have got past the sewers it saves, after you get into the museum it saves etc… It means a small area has to be completed before things can save. This can be done automatically and manually and it saves when you pick things up or beat a boss or enter a new level etc…
Zelda ocarina of time on the N64 used this but not the second no that used:
5: Save points
It isn’t a bad idea, saving your game at a statue or book etc… Resident Evil is a good example and if you don’t have time to reach the next one then try to get to the last one. It is also a cheap trick to make the games last longer but isn’t quite as frustrating as Saving at the end of each level can be. Now not all games should use this a.k.a Zelda Majora’s Mask! It’s main fault is the saving at a save point or going back in time. In Ocarina of Time I used to save every time I did something but in Majora’s Mask and going to a save point that could be miles away would be a waste of time and going back in time erases what you did. Then your game crashes, you could have been at the end of one of the games huge dungeons and it suddenly freezes (this happened to me) and now you have to do it again! Zelda is a big game and so I believe the save at any time or checkpoint method would be much more useful.
Well these methods are used be it Memory cards or in Cart and there is many more but which will be the more widely used in the future? The future of saving ah? Interesting one I believe as games are getting much bigger checkpoints and save anywhere methods will be a more useful approach. Developers shouldn’t result to reducing save opportunities to make the games last longer; if games have problems then it should be sorted in a more constructive way. And throwing in more enemies isn’t the only other way to make them last longer or become harder!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Page: