The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Flippin heck, I couldn't write that much about the entire games industry, let alone quick saves.
my goodness... How talented is he that writes much about the quick save...
(You mean how sad...?)
No
I've gotta admit... i'm impressed, but also sick that the effort that went into this topic didn't go into something a little more... encompassing... for lack of a better word... I mean Quick Saves... who has an opinion on Quick Saves?
Damn Gronti... you're so good at Fogging!
Keep it Up!
Gad Luck, mate!
Game
(You mean how sad...?)
No
I've gotta admit... i'm impressed, but also sick that the effort that went into this topic didn't go into something a little more... encompassing... for lack of a better word... I mean Quick Saves... who has an opinion on Quick Saves?
Damn Gronti... you're so good at Fogging!
Keep it Up!
Gad Luck, mate!
Game
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: