I hate the "save anywhere anytime" save system.

A lot of games (if it makes sense for the game) these days seem to have both don't they? Fixed auto save points and Manual Quick save. So use whatever you want.

Not a fan of this system in RPGs. Still better than the "Save only in towns" feature of Dragon Quest Games, though.

F5 Quick-Save and F9 Quick-Load rules

I think you got it backwards.Checkpoints are cheap not saving at any time

That's okay, I hate checkpoint saves. We can agree to disagree, and it will probably change nothing.

I really like it, as it helps me who usually don't play long sessions. Also, while I do tend to save pretty much everywhere, I never replay a old save if I do a mistake.

I honestly love games where I can save anywhere, any time and as often as I want to. I usually save in situations where the games branches off, follow one path and then another. That way, I don't have to replay the game from scratch. The most current example I can provide is a conversation with Alistair from Dragon Age Origins near the end of the game (shortly before the final battle), where he wants to know my opinion about members of my party. Had a save just minutes before I talked to him, and I had a good laugh.

Giving player options is the best system. If I want/need to save at a certain point, I should be able to. You can add Ironman/Hardcore/Permadeath modes on top of that, without taking away our ability to choose.

For any game that has an interesting story(My focus in games is story so most I play) I believe it a fundamental necessity since I will want to play through every single possible way and that takes long enough without having to play the game again and again.

It is also incredibly useful in terms of you being capable of stop playing at any time which allows you to finish a game through lots of small sessions instead of just long ones. It is not as bad when you lose only a minute or so of gameplay even if through dozens or hundreds of sessions it adds up to a lot but I have had games where I had to keep going because the last true save point(because checkpoints are only temporary saves in those cases) was hours ago. Granted most of that time was me trying to take on the toughest boss in the game while in maximum difficulty -and in hindsight should probably have finished the game in normal or even hard first- but that only makes it even more important for there to be a save right afterwards.

Thanks!

I have been spoiled by checkpoint saving. I went back to a game without it and assumed it was automatically saving my progress. It wasn't :(

It's a lesson for the kids out there. Always check the save mechanic, or end up like me - bitter old man, redoing whole levels. :tears:

There are cases and cases...
In some games it's cool to be able to save anytime, anywhere, so you can stop your game session and start again from the exact point later, BUT in some games it's cool to have that sense of progression through a whole section or stage, and compare how well you do with other people without the possibility of using a anywhere checkpoint, and knowing the other guy also couldn't use it (unless cheat) :D

I agree that games should be played from start to finish without saving at all. That's how it started and it shouldn't be changed. Today's gaming is just story driven lameness that puts the player at ease to actually enjoy the game. Instead players should be on the verge of a nervous breakdown all the time, because they might have to redo 4 hours of extremely difficult gaming.

On a more serious note: It is indeed the player's choice how to approach a game. Hell, even a lot of adventure and RPG manuals state: Save early, save often! Many games are meant to be played with free saves, so the player can experiment with/explore the environment more without having to fear to do something 'wrong'. I agree that for action and platform games saving everywhere means a lot lower difficulty, but then again it doesn't make the game any worse either. It's really up to you if you overdo/abuse it or not.

Kelvin don't be such a meanie :C

Kelvin don't be such a meanie :C

I suffer from intense simulator sickness. However, there are some games that I can mostly play with only parts that spike my simulator sickness. When it spikes, I have to stop because I break out in a sweat, have to vomit, strip off my clothes, etc. Thing is, whatever spiked it has already passed, and the likelihood of me having to do it AGAIN if I want to play the game is very high. If I could save anytime on these games, I could come back after my sickness has passed and continue on to the next spike.

I'm in my forties, but I still have some small children. The luxury of being able to play straight for longer than 10-15 minute stretches is rare. If the checkpoints are really close together (like BioShock Infinite), then I'm usually cool with checkpoints. But close together checkpoints are the exception cases, not the norm. So, usually I hate checkpoints. That being said, the checkpoints in the Burial at Sea DLCs are too far apart, and Rapture City spikes me pretty bad, so I haven't been able to enjoy that season pass.

Let me play my way. I'm happy to let you play yours. If I want to "ruin" my experience, what business is it of anyone else? For me, it's either the save anywhere or a very high chance that my experience will already be ruined due to not being able to play very far into the game. All it takes is one major checkpoint for me to have to go re-do, and I'm done.

Checkpoint systems were originally invented for consoles because of memory card limitations (saving in blocks). In other words, hardware limitations. They didn't used to store the entire state of everything that happened up to that checkpoint, but only that the player had reached it with a certain set of attributes. (Enemy locations, etc., would get reset back to default when loading a checkpoint, while a character's inventory and stats would stay intact.) Playing games with checkpoints just gives me the impression of a cheap console-itis port, even though consoles themselves have no limiting reason to have checkpoints now, either.

But mostly it's because I only get to game in bursts. More often than not, I end up just choosing to do something besides playing games because the game I would like to play doesn't have a save anywhere system. I don't need a rollback because I did something stupid, I just need to not have to re-do half the level because I got interrupted while I was playing.

I personally LOVE that about games. If I want to get in like 5 minutes of gaming before I have to go to a meeting or game during a 10 minute break from work, if I can save anywhere I do not have to worry about all my work being for nothing.

I can only think of this system on the spot for Pokemon games. Whenever there was a legendary and my supply of 99 ultra balls ran out, I'd just restart and try again.

"Son, got to the bed already!"

"OK, just let me find the save point, mom!"

Good times, huh?

Apart from the combat, everyone (that I could hear) was whining about Bioshock Infinite's checkpoint system. There really is no way to satiate the internet is there?
If you don't like it, just don't use it. I use it all the time because I'm just not hardcore enough. :P

I like it like this, I just don't abuse it for choice-making cause that just takes all the fun out of it.

Though sometimes I purposely save, then do something I otherwise wouldn't have, just to see what happens (kill someone instead of saving them or whatever)

As the Dude says...

Depends on the game. I think shooters should have it. I hate doing a hard part and dying from a mistake and doing it all over again. RPG's too should have it. Sometimes you want try different strategies. I hate it when games have only checkpoints.

I kindly disagree with you :p

Yeah, the games were so much harder before, when you could only save at certain points. But i think i wouldn't have the nerve for this old checkpoint system again, i'm used to the quick-save thing.