I hate the "save anywhere anytime" save system.

Why the hell was this thread made? 98/100 times games use either persistent and/or checkpoint auto-saves so by now this is a moot issue if you're campaigning against it......

The only ones that have anything to say on this topic are those of us that actually liked it, that like cutting out repetition from a stupid antiquated console save system. Those of you that hated it have already won so you're just being petty now if you still harp on about it now.

Depends on the game, it's very good for games on handheld systems since those are meant to be played for shorter periods of time and it's annoying when you want to stop and have to go search for a spot to save. But I do see where you are coming from in that it can make the game more cheap since I've seen remakes of games add such a system and the remake is easy compared to the original because of it.

You're right. Checkpoint system is much better.

I prefer this save system. Im usually playing a game and get bothered by the real life problems we all face: eating, having to go chop wood just as you get 20 min into the game, getting a call from a local kid you sell drugs too.... An instant save feature always helps. Some games let you save anywhere but when you load it up its actually a checkpoint save... fuck that.

Hint: It is "You can save anywhere", not "You have to save everywhere"

It has it's benifits, imagine your "no kill" run, and you accidently kill some one late game and it autosaves right then and there, or will autosave if you try to quit. Restart, from beginning, no matter how much time you put into it. It is up to the player if and how they want to use it.

My problem with save anywhere is that I forget to save for long periods, time in which the autosave may not have triggered, and then I die. That seems to be an often cause of me not playing that game again for several months.

Saving whenever you like is the proper way to do this. I played Tomb Raider 1 back in the 90's on PC. It had that system. It was awesome. Then I played the PlayStation version. Good grief, what a crapfest. And then, because of consoles (they had no hard disk), games were ported to PC with that shitty checkpoint system, isntead of proper save support.

And now people start making claims about how much better checkpoints are... I want to strangle a bunny rabbit. Argh! The only thing checkpoints have done for games is making the games easier, and introduce stuff like regenerating health, exactly because you can't save when you want.

And not only that, but you also can't load when you want. There's only "start the whole game from the beginning" or "load last checkpoint" brain damage.

Yes, I'm overreacting :-P I was mad as hell 12 years ago when that checkpoint stuff started popping up. It's amazing that I'm still mad about it and that I think that game designers today are complete morons.

Heavy Rain

It's basically down to saving time. Not everyone has the time and/or the patience to go back and replay a game from the very beginning just to find out what happens if you kill enemy X with a different weapon 6 hours into the game.

It's your game, you get to decide how you want to play it. The more choices you can make, the better. That includes the possibility to save whenever you feel like it/need to. It's all good.

Free saving is the only good system. Many games allow loading earlier checkpoints, so it's not an issue related to free saving.

What you are describing is ironman mode which is found on many games even with free saving.

Thumbs up to saving whenever I decide it's the right time to do so. Real life happens.

one problem with the permanent consequences for a choice thing is the choices are sometimes very unclear.
for example in mass effect i remember picking a dialogue option that turned out nothing at all like how it looked. the script wasn't even similar to the text it claimed i was going to say. i don't remember what it was and it wasn't a huge deal but i remember it being annoying. felt like shepard lied to me. the ability to save before choices mitigates that at least

You're moaning about how the save system is used by the user. If you don't like to use it the way you stated... then don't. You have the option with saves states where as checkpoints offer zero options other than be forced to play until the next checkpoint when you have shit to do or loose your progress.

I see what you mean, but it strongly depends on the game and the personal opinion. I prefer "save everywhere anytime" most of the times, but even when a game profits from using another system, here is something that kills a lot of fun for me:

When you have a system without free save, developers NEED to build in a "temporary save" feature, where you can save your game at ANY time, but automaticly quit the game in the process and when you load it, the temp-save gets deleted, so its just used to enable you to turn of the game/console/pc whenever you want. Nowadays thats thankfully mandatory in most handheld-games, but apart from that, its a very rare sight.
I dont want to be forced to reach PointX in a game before I turn of the system and dont want to constantly have to make the decision "Alright, there was a checkpoint.. do I want to play long enough to reach the next one or rather quit now?". Thats something that killed a lot of fun in Bioshock Infinite and I remember an especially tedious section of Lost Odyssey, where the last save-point was one hour ago and I wanted to quit, but I had to play for another 1 hour to reach the next save without any possible way to go back to the last one.

Then be hardcore and never save. Like you said, it's up to the player to decide how he uses it.

A game with a horrible checkpoint system where you are stuck with 1hp after some autosave, that's way worse. But yeah it heavily depends on the games, in some games I can see it ruining a part of the game but in others it's may be the best :P

Well, that is something that comes with the old shooter system, where you could only regain health with medpacks and stuff.
Most of the time you had to pass a long section with little to no health at all, so yeah, the save anywhere system was handy.

With the auto regen feature of most actual shooters is not really needed. i have not seen that type of save lately. But probably some types of games might get a benefit.

At the end its all up to the player. Some like me we just save at key spots (before or after a though part, but never in between)
Some other abuse the system and save every 15 seconds or saving after getting rid of 1 obstacle and then save again.

But yes, games like Jedi academy 2 benefit greatly from the save anywhere system, specially in branches of the story, i really wont play the whole damm thing just to see what happens "on the other part of the way", so yeah, i like the "old" system, i may just dont like people who use it as a handicap

I hate sparse save systems. Oh, you just got past a hard part? better do 3 more, a dozen puzzles, and an impossible boss!

Fuck that, give me the ability to save all the time.

And fuck auto-health regens, its either easy mode or hide-in-cover-all-the-time and die the instant you try and run forward. I've never had as much fun in modern shooters as I did in Half-life and Doom.

The Penny Arcade games have this, and they don't have branching paths. It's more for stopping at any time.

As for the system itself, I like it. It always me to attend to real life whenever I have to.

My opinion is it is THE WAY it should be. If someone thinks it is too easy to beat game this way, then don't use it. Simple as that. I have usually better things to do than doing same shit over and over and over... because there are games, where the checkpoint system is just stupid or cheap (a way to extend the play time of a shitty game).

edit: I come from Doom and Quake era.

I prefer Checkpoint save system also in games with quick saves i only save after some time (for example after finishing a mission).
If i fail i have to reload and play for an other hout is that so bad? i mean come on guys i play the game because i like it or want to play it and screwing up is part of the game.

I think saving should be changed according to the difficulty that you choose. Some games do this, like Dead Space for example. The higher the difficulty, the more limited the saves. But I agree with you that it's cheap and ridiculous to be able to save all the time. Of course, some people got this all wrong and managed to completely ruin a game experience by misplacing checkpoints, as it happens with Trine.

I love the quick save system, to me personally its one of the best aspects a game could have, Far Cry 2's checkpoint system made me stop playing so quick save is a must is most games, I can see where you are coming from though, I remember failing the torture scene in MGS 1 and thinking I wish I saved it not too far from it and I suffered the consequences, which was nice lol