The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
No it's not a story about the efficient rescue of some poor soul or a money saving tip. I am, of course, talking about the Quick Save ability in games. The ability to ignore the hassle of going through menus and typing things in so that you can save your progress, the one key press shortcut to stability, the thing that means death is a mere inconvenience. Many people are opposed to this function, it is becoming more and more a topic of mention, mostly by people concerned about it's ability to defeat the purpose of gaming. Some people believe that the quick save is too easy to use and means that games lose all challenge by the ability to save with one button press and load up with another just after you die. It allows a player to press the quick save key as soon as they make any progress and with minimal interruption to their gaming experience, this means that if they go round the corner and die they don't really lose anything or if they fail in a puzzle or whatever they can just go back and do it again in a matter of seconds. The end result is that challenges can be looked at and figured out by process of elimination rather than putting your full effort and skill into it and it allows the player to just go back and try a bit again if they feel they wasted too much items/ammo or lost too much health. It is feared that the quick save will take too much challenge out of games and make them less fun by removing the need to worry about dying.
Of course there is another point of view. The quick save allows the player to go through a game without having to bother with menus, which force them to suspend the illusion of realism in the game and so saving is easier which will mean that people can just get on with playing. It could also be said that the quick save is only a bad thing if people abuse it. For example, if a person saves every time they make a little progress then all of the negative points mentioned before would apply but if a person only saves as often as they would normally then it really makes no difference to usual saving except for the benefit of speed. If anyone objects to the quick save, there is a simple solution, don't use it, this way both supporters and opposers can both be happy. Really the descision of whether the quick save is a bad or good thing is down to the games player as an individual.
There are certainly a lot of acceptable ways to deal with the problems of the quick save. For example, there is the guilt effect. Seen in games such as Deus Ex and Severance, the guilt effect involves listing the number of times you have saved during your time playing and in Severance even grading it. This means that some people may feel that they should try and avoid saving too often, or else they will clearly be able to see that they saved more than they really should have. So in the end rather than dealing with the problems directly the guilt effect makes games players want to save only when they need to such as after a difficult bit or when quitting play thus removing the problems of death having no meaning etc. As well as allowing players to brag about how rarely they needed to save there could be additional incentive such as bonus cheats or game features for being able to do things while keeping saving to a minimum. The problem with the guilt effect is that it could just be ignored, so people really don't care how often they are saving and don't mind seeing the huge number of saves written next to their saved game and of course they will only see it when loading or doing a proper save. Another possible way to deal with the problems of the quick save is to remove it alltogether. Firstly you could retain the normal save, so people can save when they have to (such as leaving the game or after making a lot of progress they really don't want to lose) but wont be tempted to save all the time. Plus it could also remove the problem where you quick save just before you are killed and have to go back very far to the last proper save you made (often resulting in you losing everything you did since you started playing). The problem with this is that the player could still save through the menus any time they liked so all that would happen would be that they would have to go through the inconvenience of using menus but still be able to save before every challenge. Alternatively you could remove all saving, which means that if the player fails a part of the game they must go back to the pre defined stopping point or the beginning of the level. There could be a system of only being able to stop at specific points to save which would mean that the player could still save on occasion but would also have to be careful and use all their skill to avoid losing any progress between saves. This save point system has been used effectively in many games, often adding an extra element to the gameplay. The disadvantage of restricting saving at any time is that if the player has to leave for something or is in the mood to quit and play something else then they must first reach the next stopping point unless they only just reached one. This can be frustrating since you are allways wondering where the next save is and wishing you could reach it soon. Another disadvantage is that if the player is just about to reach a save point and can even see it ahead but they die they can be very annoyed at having to do it all again. Restricting save points has to be done carefully because if a part is too long or contains too many difficult parts and the save points are poorly placed it can make it too frustrating to bother going through it all time and time again. Some games just don't work without saves, Real Time Strategy games for example couldn't really use specific save points and some missions take too long to go through without saving. Another possibility of dealing with the quick save problem is limiting saves. This means that the player has to be careful about when they save but still has the freedom to save at any time. This was used very well in Aliens versus Predator and has been used surprisingly little since then. You could also have varying amounts of saves depending on difficulty thus adding an extra element of challenge to the game but still keeping some freedom of save. The problem with this could be that the player saves too quickly and doesn't realise how big the level is, so they are left without any saves but a big part of the level left to go through.
It is hard to say if quick saving is a good thing or not, in the end it usually depends on the circumstances and your own opinions. In the future we will see if the fears of quick save opposers come to be, we will see if developers feel alternatives are necessary and we will see if it was really worth all the fuss.
Of course there is another point of view. The quick save allows the player to go through a game without having to bother with menus, which force them to suspend the illusion of realism in the game and so saving is easier which will mean that people can just get on with playing. It could also be said that the quick save is only a bad thing if people abuse it. For example, if a person saves every time they make a little progress then all of the negative points mentioned before would apply but if a person only saves as often as they would normally then it really makes no difference to usual saving except for the benefit of speed. If anyone objects to the quick save, there is a simple solution, don't use it, this way both supporters and opposers can both be happy. Really the descision of whether the quick save is a bad or good thing is down to the games player as an individual.
There are certainly a lot of acceptable ways to deal with the problems of the quick save. For example, there is the guilt effect. Seen in games such as Deus Ex and Severance, the guilt effect involves listing the number of times you have saved during your time playing and in Severance even grading it. This means that some people may feel that they should try and avoid saving too often, or else they will clearly be able to see that they saved more than they really should have. So in the end rather than dealing with the problems directly the guilt effect makes games players want to save only when they need to such as after a difficult bit or when quitting play thus removing the problems of death having no meaning etc. As well as allowing players to brag about how rarely they needed to save there could be additional incentive such as bonus cheats or game features for being able to do things while keeping saving to a minimum. The problem with the guilt effect is that it could just be ignored, so people really don't care how often they are saving and don't mind seeing the huge number of saves written next to their saved game and of course they will only see it when loading or doing a proper save. Another possible way to deal with the problems of the quick save is to remove it alltogether. Firstly you could retain the normal save, so people can save when they have to (such as leaving the game or after making a lot of progress they really don't want to lose) but wont be tempted to save all the time. Plus it could also remove the problem where you quick save just before you are killed and have to go back very far to the last proper save you made (often resulting in you losing everything you did since you started playing). The problem with this is that the player could still save through the menus any time they liked so all that would happen would be that they would have to go through the inconvenience of using menus but still be able to save before every challenge. Alternatively you could remove all saving, which means that if the player fails a part of the game they must go back to the pre defined stopping point or the beginning of the level. There could be a system of only being able to stop at specific points to save which would mean that the player could still save on occasion but would also have to be careful and use all their skill to avoid losing any progress between saves. This save point system has been used effectively in many games, often adding an extra element to the gameplay. The disadvantage of restricting saving at any time is that if the player has to leave for something or is in the mood to quit and play something else then they must first reach the next stopping point unless they only just reached one. This can be frustrating since you are allways wondering where the next save is and wishing you could reach it soon. Another disadvantage is that if the player is just about to reach a save point and can even see it ahead but they die they can be very annoyed at having to do it all again. Restricting save points has to be done carefully because if a part is too long or contains too many difficult parts and the save points are poorly placed it can make it too frustrating to bother going through it all time and time again. Some games just don't work without saves, Real Time Strategy games for example couldn't really use specific save points and some missions take too long to go through without saving. Another possibility of dealing with the quick save problem is limiting saves. This means that the player has to be careful about when they save but still has the freedom to save at any time. This was used very well in Aliens versus Predator and has been used surprisingly little since then. You could also have varying amounts of saves depending on difficulty thus adding an extra element of challenge to the game but still keeping some freedom of save. The problem with this could be that the player saves too quickly and doesn't realise how big the level is, so they are left without any saves but a big part of the level left to go through.
It is hard to say if quick saving is a good thing or not, in the end it usually depends on the circumstances and your own opinions. In the future we will see if the fears of quick save opposers come to be, we will see if developers feel alternatives are necessary and we will see if it was really worth all the fuss.
Page:
So Autosave seems to work best.
Now for the final question.
Autosave works fine on a hardrive or cartrige but will it work as well on a memory card?
Will it slow the game down whenever it saves?
Now for the final question.
Autosave works fine on a hardrive or cartrige but will it work as well on a memory card?
Will it slow the game down whenever it saves?
Strafex wrote:
> Why don't you comment on some of the replies.
You've got:
No save
Save
> points
And Auto saves
to comment on.
I did cover those in my original post a bit. Well I've already done No saves so I'll move on.
Save points and Auto Saves are generally the same, except that most games have Auto saves anyway. Max Payne for example had normal saves, quick saves and Auto Saves. Though it did only auto save at the start of a mission and the missions were sometimes a bit long to start from the start all the time. Max Payne was quite well divided though, so that you didn't even think about quick saving except at certain points which were almost like save points themselves. It was like there was some sort of subliminal message thing that told you not to save until you reached a certain part. Of course saving did remove you from the game even though it was very temporary and this made it less appealing as Max Payne is the sort of game that grips you. Auto saves work well in Black & White because while you rarely load (usually only when starting the game, which is automatic as well so that's good) there is still the chance that the game does an error and you lose everything, with auto saves you only lose about 10 minutes work at most. Black & White also saved when you quit automatically, so it was like the sort of game that you can't save and load in, The Sims for example. It meant that you had an almost real running world that you couldn't go back on. Except that you could, but your creature stayed the same as it was before the load so you can never load up to when you or your creature were neutral because you've decided to be evil and want to change your mind. You never really have to save yourself, so that's a load off your mind and lets you get on with the game without any breaks. It also means that if you want to test things you do it at your own risk, so if you mistakenly alter your creature in a way you don't want the only way to correct it is to re-train it. So the auto saving function worked well in Black & White. There are also the examples you gave of Conker and Perfect Dark etc.
If Resident Evil had one good thing, the saving sytem could have been said to be it. It had a system of save points which came in the form of typewriters but it had a twist. In order to save you had to have ink which was an item that could be collected. Since there was a limited supply of ink you could only save when you found some which meant that if you use all the ink going back and forth between a typewriter and a hard area then you might not be able to save for some time. The game maybe gave you too much ink but I think it varied depending on difficulty or something. Of course the whole system depended on you finding the ink, which might not have been easy for some. It usually appeared in easy places though, so it wasn't as challenging as it could have been. They could have made it like having to earn saves by making progress rather than just giving them away at random times in easy to reach places. The problem might have been that some people couldn't get to them so these people would have been turned away by such features. Recently someone wrote in to the letters page of PC Gamer saying that it's all fine and well games becoming more and more challenging but they have to watch out they don't push away beginners or games players who don't find it easy to play games. It did make me think that sometimes games try to make things very hard for the average gamer and while above average gamers do exist it seems only logical that there have to be below average gamers to balance it out. Anyway, that's another issue really, not that that usually stops me mind.
> Why don't you comment on some of the replies.
You've got:
No save
Save
> points
And Auto saves
to comment on.
I did cover those in my original post a bit. Well I've already done No saves so I'll move on.
Save points and Auto Saves are generally the same, except that most games have Auto saves anyway. Max Payne for example had normal saves, quick saves and Auto Saves. Though it did only auto save at the start of a mission and the missions were sometimes a bit long to start from the start all the time. Max Payne was quite well divided though, so that you didn't even think about quick saving except at certain points which were almost like save points themselves. It was like there was some sort of subliminal message thing that told you not to save until you reached a certain part. Of course saving did remove you from the game even though it was very temporary and this made it less appealing as Max Payne is the sort of game that grips you. Auto saves work well in Black & White because while you rarely load (usually only when starting the game, which is automatic as well so that's good) there is still the chance that the game does an error and you lose everything, with auto saves you only lose about 10 minutes work at most. Black & White also saved when you quit automatically, so it was like the sort of game that you can't save and load in, The Sims for example. It meant that you had an almost real running world that you couldn't go back on. Except that you could, but your creature stayed the same as it was before the load so you can never load up to when you or your creature were neutral because you've decided to be evil and want to change your mind. You never really have to save yourself, so that's a load off your mind and lets you get on with the game without any breaks. It also means that if you want to test things you do it at your own risk, so if you mistakenly alter your creature in a way you don't want the only way to correct it is to re-train it. So the auto saving function worked well in Black & White. There are also the examples you gave of Conker and Perfect Dark etc.
If Resident Evil had one good thing, the saving sytem could have been said to be it. It had a system of save points which came in the form of typewriters but it had a twist. In order to save you had to have ink which was an item that could be collected. Since there was a limited supply of ink you could only save when you found some which meant that if you use all the ink going back and forth between a typewriter and a hard area then you might not be able to save for some time. The game maybe gave you too much ink but I think it varied depending on difficulty or something. Of course the whole system depended on you finding the ink, which might not have been easy for some. It usually appeared in easy places though, so it wasn't as challenging as it could have been. They could have made it like having to earn saves by making progress rather than just giving them away at random times in easy to reach places. The problem might have been that some people couldn't get to them so these people would have been turned away by such features. Recently someone wrote in to the letters page of PC Gamer saying that it's all fine and well games becoming more and more challenging but they have to watch out they don't push away beginners or games players who don't find it easy to play games. It did make me think that sometimes games try to make things very hard for the average gamer and while above average gamers do exist it seems only logical that there have to be below average gamers to balance it out. Anyway, that's another issue really, not that that usually stops me mind.
VenomByte wrote:
> "We shall fight them on the seas, then quick save, then fight them on the
> beaches"
Don't like quick saves myself. If you're not willing to play
> the same bit a few times you're obviously not really enjoying the game as much
> as you should be. The game should require a little bit of consistency. I long
> for the days when it was a question of 'have you completed it?' rather than 'how
> long did it take you to complete it?'
Maybe some system which gave you a
> different ending depending on the number of quick saves you used to complete the
> game would be good?
You have to watch out when restricting saves, anyone remember Hitman? Should have been so good but the levels were too repetitive since there was really only one way to complete them and it was a matter of finding the right solution. Quick save would have been a blessing just to get it over with faster. What made me bother completing it I don't know. I've bought very few shabby games in my time but Hitman was one of the worst, sure it was no Spooky Castle but considering the time difference and the possibilities of recent PCs compared to my old Commodore 64 (the original 64, I've tried both... Yes maybe the N64 is better but for it's time the C64 was top, then it was quickly replaced and lost in time). It also lacked a decent story, the genetically modified Hitman was a terrible aim with the most basic of pistols and it was short but pretended to be long by making you go through the levels again and again. Of course if you never failed it would still take you more time than Red Faction to complete probably. Hitman 2 seems to have the task of eliminating all memory of the rubbish original and replacing it with all the things that the first one should have done and more. Of course they may just be getting my hopes up again, it could easily end up just as bad as the first game.
What was I talking about again? Oh yes quick saves. Alien Versus Predator dealt with it well, limited saves but availiable at any time plus a mission sytem that usually had short mission in which you wouldn't necessarily need all saves but saves were taken into account in the length and difficulty designing. It worked out quite well. No quick save but saving was quick and you didn't do it too often, twice at most on the hardest mode and up to eight times on the easiest. The funny thing is that as you got further you got better and when you reached the next difficulty you needed less saves anyway. Actually didn't I cover that in my orginal post? Nevermind some things are worth repeating. Nevermind some things are worth repeating. Hmm, that wasn't though.
> "We shall fight them on the seas, then quick save, then fight them on the
> beaches"
Don't like quick saves myself. If you're not willing to play
> the same bit a few times you're obviously not really enjoying the game as much
> as you should be. The game should require a little bit of consistency. I long
> for the days when it was a question of 'have you completed it?' rather than 'how
> long did it take you to complete it?'
Maybe some system which gave you a
> different ending depending on the number of quick saves you used to complete the
> game would be good?
You have to watch out when restricting saves, anyone remember Hitman? Should have been so good but the levels were too repetitive since there was really only one way to complete them and it was a matter of finding the right solution. Quick save would have been a blessing just to get it over with faster. What made me bother completing it I don't know. I've bought very few shabby games in my time but Hitman was one of the worst, sure it was no Spooky Castle but considering the time difference and the possibilities of recent PCs compared to my old Commodore 64 (the original 64, I've tried both... Yes maybe the N64 is better but for it's time the C64 was top, then it was quickly replaced and lost in time). It also lacked a decent story, the genetically modified Hitman was a terrible aim with the most basic of pistols and it was short but pretended to be long by making you go through the levels again and again. Of course if you never failed it would still take you more time than Red Faction to complete probably. Hitman 2 seems to have the task of eliminating all memory of the rubbish original and replacing it with all the things that the first one should have done and more. Of course they may just be getting my hopes up again, it could easily end up just as bad as the first game.
What was I talking about again? Oh yes quick saves. Alien Versus Predator dealt with it well, limited saves but availiable at any time plus a mission sytem that usually had short mission in which you wouldn't necessarily need all saves but saves were taken into account in the length and difficulty designing. It worked out quite well. No quick save but saving was quick and you didn't do it too often, twice at most on the hardest mode and up to eight times on the easiest. The funny thing is that as you got further you got better and when you reached the next difficulty you needed less saves anyway. Actually didn't I cover that in my orginal post? Nevermind some things are worth repeating. Nevermind some things are worth repeating. Hmm, that wasn't though.
Why don't you comment on some of the replies.
You've got:
No save
Save points
And Auto saves
to comment on.
You've got:
No save
Save points
And Auto saves
to comment on.
7 Replies by 10:00 am for a low interest topic done at night isn't bad I think. Anyway, the reason I did the quick save was because it appeared in PC Gamer a few times and many people have differing opinions on how good or bad a thing it is. So I thought I could do my take on it plus it would be something that hasn't really been done before so I could avoid any complaints on repetitiveness.
The quick save was in Red Faction and that's probably why it was a big failure as a PC game in my opinion. On the Playstation 5 hours of game could have easily been extended by you not bothering to save often, on the PC with quick save no time was wasted. In the end a game that lasts 5 hours and has very few redeeming qualities just doesn't cut it for the PC player. I'm not even a big FPS fan and I was disappointed so I expect that FPS fans who were expecting something fresh and new with geo-mod would have been gutted. Not literally of course. Maybe I should write a review of Red Faction but they just don't give you enough characters, 4000 just wont be enough. Before they had the display I went overboard by far with my reviews and had to cut them so much that they lost all quality and now with it I have to end to abruptly. Maybe that's a suggestion for SR, remove the review limit, though I expect it's there for technical reasons.
Thanks for the compliments, it's the good attitude of the FOGers that keeps me coming back. Any suggestions on what you would prefer I turned my attention to?
The quick save was in Red Faction and that's probably why it was a big failure as a PC game in my opinion. On the Playstation 5 hours of game could have easily been extended by you not bothering to save often, on the PC with quick save no time was wasted. In the end a game that lasts 5 hours and has very few redeeming qualities just doesn't cut it for the PC player. I'm not even a big FPS fan and I was disappointed so I expect that FPS fans who were expecting something fresh and new with geo-mod would have been gutted. Not literally of course. Maybe I should write a review of Red Faction but they just don't give you enough characters, 4000 just wont be enough. Before they had the display I went overboard by far with my reviews and had to cut them so much that they lost all quality and now with it I have to end to abruptly. Maybe that's a suggestion for SR, remove the review limit, though I expect it's there for technical reasons.
Thanks for the compliments, it's the good attitude of the FOGers that keeps me coming back. Any suggestions on what you would prefer I turned my attention to?
"We shall fight them on the seas, then quick save, then fight them on the beaches"
Don't like quick saves myself. If you're not willing to play the same bit a few times you're obviously not really enjoying the game as much as you should be. The game should require a little bit of consistency. I long for the days when it was a question of 'have you completed it?' rather than 'how long did it take you to complete it?'
Maybe some system which gave you a different ending depending on the number of quick saves you used to complete the game would be good?
Don't like quick saves myself. If you're not willing to play the same bit a few times you're obviously not really enjoying the game as much as you should be. The game should require a little bit of consistency. I long for the days when it was a question of 'have you completed it?' rather than 'how long did it take you to complete it?'
Maybe some system which gave you a different ending depending on the number of quick saves you used to complete the game would be good?
I've noticed that some games have an auto-save.
Donkey Kong 64, Conkers Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers...
All these games save the game automatically whenever it's needed.
In Donkey Kong it's whenever you get a Golden Banana (so it saves everytime you find one, but you can't save on the jump before the prize so you won't ruin the skill - only Donkey Kong 64 was really easy anyway...)
With Conkers Bad Fur Day its whenever you finish off a set piece (so you can't save half way through the challenge but you don't have to do the same bit lots of times.)
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark automatically saves the game after every level (no mid mission saves hence no loss in challenge but you don't have to start from the beginning everytime).
And others record cup wins, characters unlocked, high scores...etc.
Unfortunately, without the cartrige save, devellopers might not be able to do it any more.
I hope that's not so.
It's good because the develloper has full control over games difficulty level.
Donkey Kong 64, Conkers Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers...
All these games save the game automatically whenever it's needed.
In Donkey Kong it's whenever you get a Golden Banana (so it saves everytime you find one, but you can't save on the jump before the prize so you won't ruin the skill - only Donkey Kong 64 was really easy anyway...)
With Conkers Bad Fur Day its whenever you finish off a set piece (so you can't save half way through the challenge but you don't have to do the same bit lots of times.)
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark automatically saves the game after every level (no mid mission saves hence no loss in challenge but you don't have to start from the beginning everytime).
And others record cup wins, characters unlocked, high scores...etc.
Unfortunately, without the cartrige save, devellopers might not be able to do it any more.
I hope that's not so.
It's good because the develloper has full control over games difficulty level.
The guy in PC Gamer this month thinks the same as you with his "I demand to be paid for each time I don't quick-save" article.
I enjoy saving after a really hard bit just so I dont have to go back to it.
Ever.
I enjoy saving after a really hard bit just so I dont have to go back to it.
Ever.
Aye, it may not win too many "Interest" awards, but none the less a well written piece.
As for an opinion:-
I think games developers should do away with saves altogether. In fact, they should go back to the days of the "Dizzy" games (the egg with boxing gloves - I'm not making it up youngsters!) and do away with levels and restart points!
You should have 1 life and use it wisely. If you die then its back to the very beginning for you, yes even if you were at the last boss (oh, how many times that happened to me on "Turrican").
Also, games should still be on the scale they are now! If you want to finish FF7 then I'm afraid you've got to play for 40+ consecutive hours! (I've done it with Zelda 64, its not THAT hard).
"Make gamin' proper 'ard!" - to sum things up.
As for an opinion:-
I think games developers should do away with saves altogether. In fact, they should go back to the days of the "Dizzy" games (the egg with boxing gloves - I'm not making it up youngsters!) and do away with levels and restart points!
You should have 1 life and use it wisely. If you die then its back to the very beginning for you, yes even if you were at the last boss (oh, how many times that happened to me on "Turrican").
Also, games should still be on the scale they are now! If you want to finish FF7 then I'm afraid you've got to play for 40+ consecutive hours! (I've done it with Zelda 64, its not THAT hard).
"Make gamin' proper 'ard!" - to sum things up.
To save in Red Faction you had to pause go through aout 3 menu's and save to the card, If you don't you have to start from the beginning. A quick save button who have been fantastic or even automatically save when you enter a new area but noooooooooooooooooo
Page: