Games with checkpoints

[Gatx]

There's lots of pros and cons. Obviously having a save function gives you a lot of freedom, but checkpoints make the game more challenging. When games give you total control over when to save then it makes some aspects of the game really easy. Like in platformer, if you save every single time you make it past one obstacle, or in an action game, every time you do some damage without taking any do a boss.

Yes but if I successfully do a jump right, doesn't that mean I've proven myself for that section? Why would I want to do it again if I can't get past the next bit?

Because you have to prove you can get through all of the obstacles in one go. That's more challenging and more "realistic." Like, if you had to run an obstacle course, you have to get through all the way in one go.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Oh, and I dislike some games that allow you to save outside of combat, but not in combat. Mass Effect and I think Dragon Age had this limitation. I understand you don't want player to abuse it, but I find that more often then not it just keeps me from saving at the start of the fight because the bad guys have already aggro'd. The only time I've ever "abused/exploited" the ability to save in combat was in Skyrim against a Dragon Priest when I was at low level.

I think the rule should always be "trust the gamer". If the player wants to save in combat, let him do it. If he doesn't, he won't. Or have a menu option to enable or disable quicksave.

Why complain about ruining the challenge with quicksave and then have an "easy" difficulty option which makes the game incredibly easy? Because that's what Mass Effect had. On easy mode I could go get a drink in the middle of combat and be still alive when I got back.

I'd personally much rather have quicksave than have the option to change the difficulty.

 

[Tupolev]

There's lots of pros and cons. Obviously having a save function gives you a lot of freedom, but checkpoints make the game more challenging. When games give you total control over when to save then it makes some aspects of the game really easy. Like in platformer, if you save every single time you make it past one obstacle, or in an action game, every time you do some damage without taking any do a boss.

Yes but if I successfully do a jump right, doesn't that mean I've proven myself for that section? Why would I want to do it again if I can't get past the next bit?

Because "doing the jump" might not be the challenge that the game is throwing at you. In "Bigger Guns Nearby" in Marathon, for instance, the entire second half of the level is a gauntlet. The goal isn't to be able to kill your way past each Pfhor. The goal is to be able to kill your way past all the Pfhor. "Total Carnage" would cease to be a meaningful descriptor.

I'll say this much, though: if you're playing a game with a checkpoint system and it's frustrating you, it doesn't mean that checkpoint systems are bad. It means either that game has poorly implemented checkpoints, or that you should go find a game whose core gameplay doesn't frustrate you.

edit:

I think the rule should always be "trust the gamer". If the player wants to save in combat, let him do it. If he doesn't, he won't. Or have a menu option to enable or disable quicksave.

Would cheapen the experience, make it contrived.

 

[Joccaren]

Now, I'm not going to boycott games that don't have a save function,

Why not? If you did, maybe it would teach game companies that if they pull stuff like that then they won't get out money. It's just laziness anyway - how much extra programming can it take to assign the F5 key to saving?

Because I enjoy the games themselves too much to actually want to boycott. Lose a great experience that is overall fun so that I can show that I do not like a practice whilst barely making a difference to the companies profits thanks to the thousands of average joes who will still buy it even if I do boycott, making my boycott not affect the company and only affect myself. Now, if we had a petition of 200,000-300,000 people who would agree to boycott these games if the others did, then I might think about it.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think checkpoints are the only system with any semblance of balance.

In every save-anywhere game I have played, any challenge could be beaten with the save system

HOWEVER, checkpoints only work if you get plenty of them.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

In every save-anywhere game I have played, any challenge could be beaten with the save system

I'd like to see how you will beat a tile slider puzzle with a save system. Or most non-action based puzzles for that matter.

 

[Nazulu]

To be honest, I prefer check points over saving any time, cause then I enjoy the challenge more (unless that check point is really really far). Yes, I know, you can just try and not save but it doesn't work because they don't really design a lot of games like that.

 

[Move127]

Seems kind of childish to not buy a game because it doesn't have the kind of save feature you like. There are a lot more aspects to games than save features and you miss out on those experiences if you are so picky about something so pointless.

 

[Nazulu]

In every save-anywhere game I have played, any challenge could be beaten with the save system

I'd like to see how you will beat a tile slider puzzle with a save system. Or most non-action based puzzles for that matter.

He said every game he has played. Also, it depends what puzzles your talking about, cause it can only make it easier with a save system.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I strongly dislike checkpoints. I am fine with autosaves but I want to be able to save wherever I want. If you think it takes away the challenge, then stop abusing the save system. We shouldn't all be punished for your lack of willpower.
If I have to leave abruptly, I want to be able to save my game.

 

[Kelz0r]

I prefer to save when I feel like it rather than have checkpoints. That's mostly because I've gotten into the situation of repeatedly dying directly after a checkpoint, and wishing I could go further back to a less deadly situation of my choosing.

Then again, this has happened on some of my own saves as well...

I also hate not being able to quit the game when I feel like it, because I need to continue until I hit a checkpoint in order to save my progress. That just doesn't work with real life, so I end up losing progress a lot.

I won't stay away from a game strictly because it has checkpoints, though.

 

[JET1971]

I still think save point only is an archaic system, may as well implement the numbers of lives you have too. I can see having an auto save right before a boss fight with nothing to do but fight and the save function is disabled until the boss is dead, but at any other moment you should be able to save at anytime.

a save point only system should be for an ultra hardcore mode where you are limited to save points and 1 life, you die you start the game over but if you exit out between saves it will start at the last. everything else should allow you to save at anytime.

 

[Yopaz]

And yet people hate the new PoP for not letting you die...

Liberally sprinkled checkpoints works just as good as saves. Unless you are OCD about saving then usually people don't save at more then 5 or 10 minute intervals anyways. I think it might just make people angry because if its in their hands to save its there own fault but if its in someone else's then even if the same outcome results, the fault can be set on someone else.

The PC gamer syndrome consists of having 30 different saves for one playthrough in case you screw something up. I feel anxious if I don't know if a game is saved or not. While playing Arkham City I usually go to a story part to make sure that it's saved... Of course that ALWAYS make me play through that story segment and start heading to the next one... I end up playing for 2 hours more than I planned all the time... though I guess I could blame the game for being totally awesome for that. What pisses me off though was that despite my precautions about not losing saves my save file became unreadable and more than 40 hours of game time disappeared...

Now, I'm not going to boycott games that don't have a save function,

Why not? If you did, maybe it would teach game companies that if they pull stuff like that then they won't get out money. It's just laziness anyway - how much extra programming can it take to assign the F5 key to saving?

Boycotting great games over minor things doesn't really change anything. Because it's a great game a lot will buy it anyway and the company will never be the wiser and you will miss out on a great game. Sure the publisher misses out on almost 20 bucks from your boycott and maybe they even miss out on a few thousands all over, but the one who really lose is you. Especially since most games use checkpoints.

 

[Nalbis]

Is it just me who senses a massive rage-quit from OP? I'm not poking fun though I actually agree - I got so damn frustrated with Arkham Asylum because of the bloody checkpoint thing it actually made me give up on the game for a while, and I'm not normally one to rage-quit a single player game.

I'll still purchase checkpoint games though because not all of them are as un-forgiving as Batman.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It's quite simple really. F5 = Quicksave, F9 = Quickload. Every game developer should know this by now, no excuses.

Having played Rage recently, the lack of save was extremely apparent and frustrating and a major point against the game. Were I to review it, it would lose marks for not offering a save. What I don't get is how KotOR, Mass Effect and other BW titles have a simple, easy to use save feature on consoles, yet no other developer seems able to work out how to do it. Morons.

Has anyone played "Outcast" for the PC, a 10 or so year old title? It actually incorporated saving into the gameplay in a still unmatched, creative way. Must admit too, I kinda like the way ResiEvil4 did it too. I can save when I want, but not where...it in itself added an extra element of danger, wondering where the next point is.

Lastly, Dead Space 2 on Nightmare difficulty. Less difficult than the hardest difficulty but only three saves for the whole playthru. Turned them into tactical choices which themselves were the subject of much debate. It changed the way the game was played on other difficulties, ammo was significantly more valuable, every step much more tense. I think it was a very well thought out and implemented challenge with a cool reward on offer and I still remember my playthru for it. I'm glad it was an optional thing tho, don't think I could do it again.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Does it annoy anyone else not being able to save wherever and whenever you like? Why would developers do this on a PC game? When I have to repeat 5 minutes of gameplay that I have already successfully completed, that is called bad game design. The recent Batman games: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are big offenders of this, sometimes making the player go back to a checkpoint he/she passed 10 minutes ago. From now on if I'm looking at buying a game, I try and find out whether a game has checkpoints - if it doesn't have a decent number of save slots and allow me to save whenever I want, then I refuse to purchase it.

Wow, your complaining about Batman of all games. Even calling them big offenders, just wow. I haven't played Arkham Asylum to remember exactly when the game saves, but pretty much every time you open a door the game saves. Seriously, if something comes up (and you have to take care of something) and you're say outside, just run into the nearest building and the game saves; if you are inside, just run back through the last door you opened. And, you're complaining about Arkham City?!?! I'm almost speechless. Every single time you do anything in the outside world the game saves; pick up a Riddler trophy - game saves, interrogate a Riddler informant - game saves, do any part of any side quest - game saves. If you are outside and need to save, run into a building and the game saves. If you are inside, run back through the last door you opened and the game saves. The only way to lose more than 10 minutes of work is if you are grinding for experience off of thugs throughout the city and you shut off the computer (or console), and there is no reason to do that anyways. If you die, the game saves your experience earned anyways. Hell, I think if you exit out to the main menu the game saves. I don't understand how one can even lose 5 minutes of playtime in either of the Batman games.

And, a save anywhere system makes almost every game super easy. Like someone else said, don't even try playing Demon's/Dark Souls, that game will eat you alive if Batman gave you troubles. And, no it doesn't matter if D. Souls games are only on the consoles or not, because a save anywhere system would totally ruin those games. And, I can guarantee if From Software did put the games on the PC, it would not a have quicksave feature. Even if you save a D. Souls game save to the cloud on PS3, you have to wait 24 hours to download that save again so you can't be cheap.

Yes but if I successfully do a jump right, doesn't that mean I've proven myself for that section? Why would I want to do it again if I can't get past the next bit?

Tell Super Mario Brothers that, SMB would be extremely broken with a save anywhere system. Some games are about beating a series of obstacles, not just beating each obstacle separately.

 

[thom_cat_]

There's nothing wrong with checkpoints. There's a problem with bad checkpoint design.