20 years of hardcore gaming and I skip almost everything now SIMPLE REASON:

Try completing Super Meat Boy.

Try completing Super Meat Boy.

True_Sounds

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

play quake live
ur mind will be fried

or play that crap game zubin linked too

it cheats

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

SPYDER0416

Try Dayz, Anno2070, Total War series, SIns Of A Solar Empire series, Galactic Civilization series.

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

Am I the only one who doesn't want my SP games that hard? I rather show off my skillaz in mp.

I want my SP gaimz to take me on an adventure.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

KHAndAnime

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

Sheppard212

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

SPYDER0416

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

DanielDust

Your idea of fun is the complete opposite of mine (and most people who play videogames). A typical videogame, to me, have always been based around the idea of an incrementing challenge, and any game that can't at least provide a challenge has failed in my eyes. A better way of going about it is making a game that's challenging, and then give all the gamers who don't like a challenge an easier mode.

For people who can't comprehend what I'm talking about, wrap your mind around this: If Dark Souls or Demons Souls was based around the quicksave/quickload dynamic, they wouldn't be nearly as recognized or acclaimed as they are today.

Once you realize the truth behind the bolded statement, then you'll see the truth behind my argument. Games that are too easy are simply not as fun as they could be. The real tragedy behind it is that difficulty is only a small aspect of the game's development, so to see games ruined by poor difficulty balancing is really sad. The keyword is balance. A game's difficulty should try to appeal to everyone, not just their target audience (little kids).

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] You forgot that most games that use quick save systems forget to implement other save options. Quicksave / quickload = crap. Laziness on the developer's part.

KHAndAnime

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

Not really, quick save systems have existed for years and generally work well with the game they are in. If someone dies and didn't save in a while they have to go back to that point, but if they saved in a bad spot then they have to fight their way through or revert to an earlier save.

Quick saves might make things easier, but they are nowhere on the level of giving a player infinite ammo or health. If it bothers you so much you can just rely on the auto save and never save yourself, but games can still be challenging with quick saves and it doesn't impact my entertainment of Max Payne whether it uses quick save or a checkpoint system, since either way I still have to avoid dying and still have a drawback to death.

And for the record, Dark Souls and Demon's Souls do have a sort of quick save option. If you quit anywhere in the game, it saves you at that exact point you will spawn, with enemies you've killed remaining dead until you yourself die and spawn back at the start, Amnesia also has a sort of quick save in allowing you to save and exit but it doesn't impact the way death works and its still an incredibly challenging game because of the puzzles (that can't really be affected by how you save) and death taking you back to a checkpoint anyways.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

SPYDER0416

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

Not really, quick save systems have existed for years and generally work well with the game they are in. If someone dies and didn't save in a while they have to go back to that point, but if they saved in a bad spot then they have to fight their way through or revert to an earlier save.

Quick saves might make things easier, but they are nowhere on the level of giving a player infinite ammo or health. If it bothers you so much you can just rely on the auto save and never save yourself, but games can still be challenging with quick saves and it doesn't impact my entertainment of Max Payne whether it uses quick save or a checkpoint system, since either way I still have to avoid dying and still have a drawback to death.

Most games that have quicksave/quickloads don't put much focus on autosaves or checkpoints, which was my point. Quick saves are on the level of infinite ammo/health/etc. Assuming that you're saving for every successful step you take.... Lose health? Reload. Need ammo? Reload. Set yourself up for a tough spot down the road? Reload.

So explain to me, how's that different than god mode?

Well play multiplayer games, humans eventually get more difficult than the game could ever be.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

SPYDER0416

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

And for the record, Dark Souls and Demon's Souls do have a sort of quick save option. If you quit anywhere in the game, it saves you at that exact point you will spawn, with enemies you've killed remaining dead until you yourself die and spawn back at the start, Amnesia also has a sort of quick save in allowing you to save and exit but it doesn't impact the way death works and its still an incredibly challenging game because of the puzzles (that can't really be affected by how you save) and death taking you back to a checkpoint anyways.

That fact that you would compare these two save systems shows that you haven't put a lot of thought into it.

In terms of balance, they aren't similar at all. Think about it really quickly and get back to me on it. The difference between quicksaving and the system that DS has is pretty damn big.

If you like puzzle games, SpaceChem is right up your alley. The story doesn't really matter, and some puzzles take most people hours to complete.

Topic creator, I highly recommend that you keep your eyes peeled for Dark Souls on PC. The game provides a steep challenge, but nothing impossible. Most people who beat these games do it with the aid of outside advice (friends/internet). If people weren't heavily reliant on outside sources to beat their games - I'd say Dark Souls could qualify as one of those games that only 1/10 would be capable of beating.KHAndAnime

Well that's mostly because people get lost more than anything else.

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

KHAndAnime

Quick save and quick load give the user the freedom to control their progress on their own accord. I'm not sure what's fun about dying repeatedly before a checkpoint two dozen times, but I guess we're not all lobotomized gamers. After all, that's what you'd have to be within the context of this thread to disregard a variety of games entirely due to having a quick save feature; and books and movies get repetitive because they never change, no matter how good they are.

GG.

Well play multiplayer games, humans eventually get more difficult than the game could ever be.

GD1551

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

KHAndAnime

Play Drakensang: The Dark Eye, and Drakensang: River of Time. The puzzles and combat both require you to think ahead, and you can set up a queue of melee moves if you wish.

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Well play multiplayer games, humans eventually get more difficult than the game could ever be.

SKaREO

Calling people that enjoy Skyrim 'kiddies' ruined any legit points you tried to make.

Instant save/load ruins gameplay Playing delta/insanity/hardest difficulty modes is just extra wasted time. They are doable, but no point doing em when I can just see the entire game so much quicker on easiest mode. Back in the days classic games had one difficulty for everyone out there. These days it seems like developers are scared if they do not release a game that 98%+ of its customers cannot complete it. I always enjoyed games cuz they required me using my brain in them. These days games are like a mini version of a movie where I play them just so I can see the story and nothing else. LOL Skyrim....dunno how so many kiddies out there enjoying it. One/two shotting everything after few hours of gameplay is not enjoyable at all. Skyrim is best example of your typical modern single player game that can be either exploited or cheated my way through. I can't wait to see one publisher out there to grow some balls and release a quality game and purposely make it so one third can experience half of it and one 10th can actually complete it. That would be such awesome experience, knowing that playing this game truly requires ability to think without any easy way out and the pleasure of finishing it at the end knowing only one in ten did it as well would be PRICELESS.Kopogero

I don't know if to take ur post seriously or not.

Are u saying ur not playing games cause of THE SAVE SYSTEM?

Like WTF dude.

... You do know that you can... You know.. Not use the feature right? Complaining about quick saves has to be the most laughable thing ever.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]... You do know that you can... You know.. Not use the feature right? Complaining about quick saves has to be the most laughable thing ever.. FelipeInside

The only thing I would argue is not that games are harder or easier now, just that they are more forgiving.. In Everquest 1 dieing was a serious thing, if you died you lost a significant amount of exp.. But the worse part is the fear that if you don't reach your body in time your body would rot and you would lose your gear.. In WoW they completely took that out of the mix and dieing isn't as tense.. Things like exploration has become mundane simply because of the little penaltry for dieing, especially in zones that are nicely leveled out.. In EQ1 there would be low level zones that would at times have high level creatures spawn in that would just go tear assing around the zone.. Its what made this kind of game unpredictable and great.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]... You do know that you can... You know.. Not use the feature right? Complaining about quick saves has to be the most laughable thing ever.. sSubZerOo

The only thing I would argue is not that games are harder or easier now, just that they are more forgiving.. In Everquest 1 dieing was a serious thing, if you died you lost a significant amount of exp.. But the worse part is the fear that if you don't reach your body in time your body would rot and you would lose your gear.. In WoW they completely took that out of the mix and dieing isn't as tense.. Things like exploration has become mundane simply because of the little penaltry for dieing, especially in zones that are nicely leveled out.. In EQ1 there would be low level zones that would at times have high level creatures spawn in that would just go tear assing around the zone.. Its what made this kind of game unpredictable and great.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] I thought the same thing. Thankfully it wasn't just me.FelipeInside

The only thing I would argue is not that games are harder or easier now, just that they are more forgiving.. In Everquest 1 dieing was a serious thing, if you died you lost a significant amount of exp.. But the worse part is the fear that if you don't reach your body in time your body would rot and you would lose your gear.. In WoW they completely took that out of the mix and dieing isn't as tense.. Things like exploration has become mundane simply because of the little penaltry for dieing, especially in zones that are nicely leveled out.. In EQ1 there would be low level zones that would at times have high level creatures spawn in that would just go tear assing around the zone.. Its what made this kind of game unpredictable and great.

I hate when increasing difficulty just makes enemies take/do more damage. It's just annoying rather than forcing you to think

I agree that too many game this day are just long cutscenes but I disagree about quicksaves and quickloads. I've been playing video games for more than 30years and from the beginning nothing has ever ****ed me off more than playing a level on a game for hours and at the end losing and having to go all the way back to the beginning. I have a box full of games from multiple platforms that I stopped playing because this happened. For me games should be fun not work, playing the same level over and over and over to finally beat it is not fun to me. I will not play any game that does not have a quick save feature.