A gamer's manifesto

[JynxDaddy]

One of the best points he made was enemies switching weapons, that would rule so much. Its simple things that can make games better.

How in the name of Islamic Fonzie did we ever let games get away with "Loading..." screens? The Gamecube doesn't have those, not on the games made by Nintendo. Hell, the 8-bit NES didn't have load screens 20 years ago.

I love my gamecube

[FrieChamp]

6. Yup, save points suck. FarCry did not give you the option to the save the game and even with a such great game it was still disturbing.

A quick save feature was added in patch 1.2

[Zacker]

I came to think about another issue, which still exists in many games: Menu/text/hud size not having the same size in different resolutions. Already at 800*600 the HL2 menu is blown up over almost the entire screen and below it is even worse. I can't believe that this problem still exists.

6. Yup, save points suck. FarCry did not give you the option to the save the game and even with a such great game it was still disturbing.

A quick save feature was added in patch 1.2

W00t, love ya Crytek!

[ReNo]

I really like checkpoint saves in some games. Quicksave makes things too easy and even in games that have it I tend to use it sparingly. Games like Halo and Republic Commando, which have forgiving health systems and checkpoint saves, work best in my opinion. If you look at the likes of Doom 3 or HL2 with the familiar old health systems and quicksave, you are too encouraged to retry an area or save after every "good" and "economic" kill in order to get through it using the minimum health and ammo, giving you a better chance in the next encounter. I prefer to want to continue on regardless of how well I did an area - far more immersive in my opinion.

[insta]

I really like checkpoint saves in some games. Quicksave makes things too easy and even in games that have it I tend to use it sparingly. Games like Halo and Republic Commando, which have forgiving health systems and checkpoint saves, work best in my opinion. If you look at the likes of Doom 3 or HL2 with the familiar old health systems and quicksave, you are too encouraged to retry an area or save after every "good" and "economic" kill in order to get through it using the minimum health and ammo, giving you a better chance in the next encounter. I prefer to want to continue on regardless of how well I did an area - far more immersive in my opinion.

It really really depends on the game. Operation Flashpoint used a checkpoint system (as well as giving the player one save per map, which could be used at any time), and it sorta sucked, since enemies could drop you in one or two bullets, and you never knew when to expect the mission to end or how far away you were from the next checkpoint.

(This caused me several times to use my valuable savegame maybe 4-5 meters away from a checkpoint. Argh!)

Games like HL2,D3 and such are fitting for a checkpoint system (autosave), since there are plenty of checkpoints per map, and you can trust the game to not fuck you over completely,so you can just play the game and not hover over the quicksave button. If you die, no problem, you reload and find yourself 5 minutes away from where you died, and you can do it all over again (but this time better, faster, stronger!!). It's not a big deal to die, since the player is more or less a superhuman, and combat is easy and fun.

[Tequila]

I really like checkpoint saves in some games. Quicksave makes things too easy and even in games that have it I tend to use it sparingly. Games like Halo and Republic Commando, which have forgiving health systems and checkpoint saves, work best in my opinion. If you look at the likes of Doom 3 or HL2 with the familiar old health systems and quicksave, you are too encouraged to retry an area or save after every "good" and "economic" kill in order to get through it using the minimum health and ammo, giving you a better chance in the next encounter. I prefer to want to continue on regardless of how well I did an area - far more immersive in my opinion.

It really really depends on the game. Operation Flashpoint used a checkpoint system (as well as giving the player one save per map, which could be used at any time), and it sorta sucked, since enemies could drop you in one or two bullets, and you never knew when to expect the mission to end or how far away you were from the next checkpoint.

(This caused me several times to use my valuable savegame maybe 4-5 meters away from a checkpoint. Argh!)

Games like HL2,D3 and such are fitting for a checkpoint system (autosave), since there are plenty of checkpoints per map, and you can trust the game to not fuck you over completely,so you can just play the game and not hover over the quicksave button. If you die, no problem, you reload and find yourself 5 minutes away from where you died, and you can do it all over again (but this time better, faster, stronger!!). It's not a big deal to die, since the player is more or less a superhuman, and combat is easy and fun.

Bang on, Insta. It's all well and good having efficiently spaced/placed checkpoints, but each player has their own unique needs. I'd hate to be denied quicksave because of developer oversight: give the player multiple save options, and they can challenge themselves by their own volition.

[ReNo]

If there was quicksave in Halo or Republic Commando, I would have used it. And if I had, I think it would have made the games worse. Quicksave is fine and I've nothing against it in the vast majority of games its used in, but I don't think it should just be shoved into all games. Some games are designed to use checkpoints, others are designed to use quick/manual saves. I don't think you can normally just shove one system or the other into a game and have it work effectively - they are important features of the game and play a part in its design.

[Tequila]

If there was quicksave in Halo or Republic Commando, I would have used it. And if I had, I think it would have made the games worse. Quicksave is fine and I've nothing against it in the vast majority of games its used in, but I don't think it should just be shoved into all games. Some games are designed to use checkpoints, others are designed to use quick/manual saves. I don't think you can normally just shove one system or the other into a game and have it work effectively - they are important features of the game and play a part in its design.

It's true that consoles do suit a checkpoint system better, by their very nature, but it's no good giving in to the lure of quicksave if you can do without. And this isn't really directed at just you, I myself am pretty weak-minded on this front. Most gamers are - we need to learn DISCIPLINE.

[Pericolos0]

fuck savepoints

fuck em

I think it's better to make the actual gameplay more challenging and have an autosave system than the hugely annoying savepoints. They don't make the game more challenging, only make it longer by forcing you to go through thesame situations again.

And also i have never played a game with savepoints that did not have at least one or two of them where you always died right before you reached it, forcing you to go through a difficult and stressful situation again. Brother's in arms suffered from this a few times too.

[JynxDaddy]

Save points add tension, Like in Metroid Prime - I sometimes break out a sweat when Im on low health and trying to fight my way to the nearest save point, being able to save anytime you want creates a safety net; doesnt work with every game.

Sure you can get pissed off and blame the creators, if you want.

[D3adlode]

Good article, he makes plenty of good points and I like his humour. He could do without constantly reffering back to D3 though, not exactly the best example to compare others to..

and Crates rock!