Poll: Should games have quick-save?

[Laura.]

Oh, God, yes!
I love quicksaving. In Deus Ex I saved like 4 times a minute.
Nothing says "fear of death" like pressing F5 every 15 seconds.

The only thing that sucks is when you attempt to jump a bottomless pit in Half Life and fail, and instead of quickloading you quicksave -> endless loop of death.

 

[Flour]

Quicksave/load removes the penalty there might have been when you get killed and, for me, removes any challenge the game might have had.

EDIT: forgot, I don't care if a game has quicksave/load, but IMO you haven't completed the game if you have used it.

 

[The Black Adder]

Quick-save is for pussies!

 

[theStrachan]

I voted yes, quicksave and quickload are really useful, both ingame and if your computer would decide to randomly crash so you dont have to loose all your progress in the game.

I have to agree here, I recently got Freedom Fighters for the gamecube and it has the habit of crashing and telling me the game disc can not be read, very annoying when you have use every sewer you come across in its full save capacity

 

[Soulgaunt]

Well, of course. It's so useful for random mess-ups.
And to people who think it's a bad idea, you don't have to use it.

 

[goatzilla8463]

The answer to this should be 100% yes, because if you don't like quick saving, you simply have the option not to use it.

Pretty much this.

But of course, if you're as good as me, saving is not necessary.

Or maybe that's down to the fact that I play everything on easy first time.

Or maybe my ego blinds me.

 

[Kinichie]

No. They quite simply make areas of a game far too easy. It goes from being a challenge to beating through a guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again, beat another guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again etc.

When games design a gauntlet for you, you're suppose to have the skill to overcome it in one go.

Wouldn't it feel more satisfying to beat 10 enemies in a row with a set amount of health rather than beating one, and reloading everytime you drop below a certain threshold just to get past the bit you are on.

 

[Merteg]

No. They quite simply make areas of a game far too easy. It goes from being a challenge to beating through a guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again, beat another guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again etc.

When games design a gauntlet for you, you're suppose to have the skill to overcome it in one go.

How does it remove the challenge?

The people are still as difficult and you have to actually beat them first.

All it does is save time.

 

[Kinichie]

No. They quite simply make areas of a game far too easy. It goes from being a challenge to beating through a guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again, beat another guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again etc.

When games design a gauntlet for you, you're suppose to have the skill to overcome it in one go.

How does it remove the challenge?

The people are still as difficult and you have to actually beat them first.

All it does is save time.

Say you are playing a fighting game. You play survival mode. have to defeat 10 opponents and your health doesnn't regenerate after each round. What if you were to play through it and after the first opponent you lost 3 health, you'd quicksave then you would fight the second opponent you were knocked down to 80 health. You'd say to yourself "i need to have more health then that, i'll do it again." And you'll keep doing it until you instead of having 80 left, you say have 93 left. And kept quicksaving after each opponent so you always had the upper hand or made sure you had enough health for the next fight. Out the window goes the challenge of the survival and also so does the achievement of actually doing it in one whole go. And the adreneline and the rush of beating the last 3 opponents on 1hp and knowing you CAN'T be hit or it's starting again.

 

[BillNyeTheColonelGuy]

It's not like you go back to before them with full health and energy (If Applicable). You still have to fight the same person with the same health and weaponry etc.
If anything, it helps you get better. You go back thinking "Right, I did x wrong; I'll try doing y this time".

Also, it's an optional extra. For those of you game elitists who think it's stupid to have Quicksave, how about you just unbind the quicksave button?

 

[arf19]

The answer to this should be 100% yes, because if you don't like quick saving, you simply have the option not to use it.

Pretty much this.

But of course, if you're as good as me, saving is not necessary.

Or maybe that's down to the fact that I play everything on easy first time.

i do this all the time i always play my new game on easy unless it is like guitar hero lol

 

[Merteg]

No. They quite simply make areas of a game far too easy. It goes from being a challenge to beating through a guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again, beat another guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again etc.

When games design a gauntlet for you, you're suppose to have the skill to overcome it in one go.

How does it remove the challenge?

The people are still as difficult and you have to actually beat them first.

All it does is save time.

Say you are playing a fighting game. You play survival mode. have to defeat 10 opponents and your health doesnn't regenerate after each round. What if you were to play through it and after the first opponent you lost 3 health, you'd quicksave then you would fight the second opponent you were knocked down to 80 health. You'd say to yourself "i need to have more health then that, i'll do it again." And you'll keep doing it until you instead of having 80 left, you say have 93 left. And kept quicksaving after each opponent so you always had the upper hand or made sure you had enough health for the next fight. Out the window goes the challenge of the survival and also so does the achievement of actually doing it in one whole go. And the adreneline and the rush of beating the last 3 opponents on 1hp and knowing you CAN'T be hit or it's starting again.

As others have said if you want to do that, then do it!

There's no one forcing you to.

 

[BillNyeTheColonelGuy]

Say you are playing a fighting game. You play survival mode. have to defeat 10 opponents and your health doesnn't regenerate after each round. What if you were to play through it and after the first opponent you lost 3 health, you'd quicksave then you would fight the second opponent you were knocked down to 80 health. You'd say to yourself "i need to have more health then that, i'll do it again." And you'll keep doing it until you instead of having 80 left, you say have 93 left. And kept quicksaving after each opponent so you always had the upper hand or made sure you had enough health for the next fight. Out the window goes the challenge of the survival and also so does the achievement of actually doing it in one whole go. And the adreneline and the rush of beating the last 3 opponents on 1hp and knowing you CAN'T be hit or it's starting again.

Fighting games don't generally have Quicksave anyway, but even if they did they're not forcing you to use it!

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

My most frustrating memory of this is with Ninja Gaiden. It wasn't even the gameplay itself that made that game difficult, it was the lack of health returns and the incredible sparseness of save points. The one that sticks out in my mind is the 12th or so level, Catacombs I think it was, where I had to fight through literally 20 minutes of shit before being able to take on the boss for the umpteenth time, only to fail and repeat the whole process. That's the primary reason I never finished that game.

 

[sln333]

Just do it like this: Autosave whenever in a new area/after finishing a mission. Also let the player save on a different save file whenever they want.

 

[Dentedgod]

Emphatically YES!!! I frakkin HATE when games don't allow you to save anywhere at anytime. I have quit playing countless games because of this. I do have a life and can't always play until the next save point. Especially as I've gotten older and picked up more responsibilities. I actually try to find out if a game can save anywhere before I buy it now and I will not buy a game that doesn't.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Yes they should, the single greatest thing PC gaming has over console gaming is the quick-save function. If you don't like it then you don't use it, if you do like then you have the ability to use it freely

 

[Sebobii]

No. They quite simply make areas of a game far too easy. It goes from being a challenge to beating through a guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again, beat another guy, saving so you don't have to beat him again etc.

When games design a gauntlet for you, you're suppose to have the skill to overcome it in one go.

Wouldn't it feel more satisfying to beat 10 enemies in a row with a set amount of health rather than beating one, and reloading everytime you drop below a certain threshold just to get past the bit you are on.

All with ya man. Quick saves for me just ruins the challenge. It's like having save points everywhere, which is kinda pointless. I like dying from a game and having to that part again, it just proves that I wasn't up for it the first time to make it to another save point. With quick save however, that challenge just disappears, and you end up not getting a hang of the game. Which also disables the NEED to get the hang of a game, which makes it even more boring.

Still, a game isn't necessarily boring because it has quick-save, since there are other aspect to gaming than just difficulty. It's up to the developers.

 

[Blanks]

Depends, the quicksave in final fantasy was nothing but a hassle, as it would save your progress, then quit and when you started it up again the 'saved' data wouldn't exist so if you died you'd be sent back to the save point not the quicksave