What is it with console ports and bloody check points

[carling220]

Mafia 2 and Max Payne 3 are both the same. I love the games, but on a hard level, I just have to turn it off. I end up having to do about 10 minutes of level I've already done because it kicks you back miles.

Compare this to Crysis and Half life etc where you get selective save points. I believe this is much better. OK so it makes it easier but I believe much better.


Surely it can't be hard to integrate a save game option?

Just downloaded dues X from steam the newer one. Hopefully this will be more save friendly.

End rant/, lol. Anyone else frustrated with this, or do you believe it just adds to difficulty and encourages more realistic, staying alive, type behaviour?

 

[shortylickens]

Oh look, its this thread again!

 

[QueBert]

I don't like in game saving imho it makes you play recklessly knowing you can just save and reload whenever. Save points kind of do the same thing, but it's on a lesser level because you don't get to define where you restart like with manual saving.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Mafia 2 and Max Payne 3 are both the same. I love the games, but on a hard level, I just have to turn it off. I end up having to do about 10 minutes of level I've already done because it kicks you back miles.

Compare this to Crysis and Half life etc where you get selective save points. I believe this is much better. OK so it makes it easier but I believe much better.


Surely it can't be hard to integrate a save game option?

Just downloaded dues X from steam the newer one. Hopefully this will be more save friendly.

End rant/, lol. Anyone else frustrated with this, or do you believe it just adds to difficulty and encourages more realistic, staying alive, type behaviour?

Totally agree. This is one of my pet peeves. Part of it may be because I started PC gaming before so many console ports, and nearly every game had a save anytime feature or at least a quicksave option. I absolutely hate checkpoint saves. Even in Diablo 3, it is ridiculous to have to walk all the way back to where you died: just a total waste of time. I mean even the enemies dont respawn, so you are just walking through open terrain. It doesnt even really make the game harder, just frustrating and a waste of time not to be able to save whenever you want. And Diablo 3 is more "diabolically" frustrating than some other games in that if you lose your internet connection or die from lag you lose all your progress back to the last checkpoint.

Back in the day, you could even name your saves. Imagine that. I cant recall which games specifically, but even some manuals back then encouraged you to save often. It cant be that hard to add a save anytime feature when a game is ported to the PC.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't like in game saving imho it makes you play recklessly knowing you can just save and reload whenever. Save points kind of do the same thing, but it's on a lesser level because you don't get to define where you restart like with manual saving.

I see your point perhaps, but if you wanted to not use the manual save system, you could just ignore it and not make any saves.

 

[cronos]

'Save the game right before and after an encounter' is a golden rule that I have been following ever since I started playing games, so I'm always ticked off if I can't do it.

 

[carling220]

Oh look, its this thread again!

Sorry if you've seen this before but I was interested about peoples thoughts and these games are quite new actually. You could just not read the thread I think the title was quite revealing as to the content.


Happy someone agrees. And I see the point about it making you be more careful. However, doing the same part 3-4 times if you are on hard level is such a pain. I agree with the idea above; incorporate a save anytime feature but also have checkpoints so you can choose your method. Can't be too hard to do.

 

[thespyder]

I don't like in game saving imho it makes you play recklessly knowing you can just save and reload whenever. Save points kind of do the same thing, but it's on a lesser level because you don't get to define where you restart like with manual saving.

Go ahead. Play Skyrim that way. 100+ hours in one sitting... LOL Ouch.

Seriously, the fixed save scheme is an artifact from way back when there wasn't hardly any space on the system you were playing. So they couldn't have a dozen save games. There simply wasn't room on the disk. And this was mainly on consoles (although even the early PCs had the same issue).

Now-a-days, it is a way to artificially extend game play. If you have to spend 10 more minutes each time you die going back over the same ground, that manifests into an addition to the 'Average' game play time. And it means that they can advertise a longer game into the process. It also artificially increases the difficulty in later levels having to defeat not just the guy who killed you, but all of his henchmen leading up to him.

I personally believe in 'Save any time' and then at the discretion of the player. If you are looking for a harder challenge, don't save often. if you want something easier, you have the option. Particularly in a game like GalCiv2 or Xcom where there are really REALLY long protracted combat sequences and a brutal penalty for dying.

I still play on my DS from time to time. I am currently playing through one of the Castlevania games (can't remember which one) and am encountering this exact thing. I can't save anywhere I want and there are LONG stretches between save points in this particular game. Means, if I die (and the game is designed to be tough-ish). You have to go and re-do it all over again.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Besides the already-mentioned boss battles without a check point:

I dislike checkpoints because it means I can't play for 5 minutes when I want to -- I have to be willing to keep playing until I reach the next checkpoint or lose all of my progress.

If it is 15 minutes between checkpoints I also can't play for just 20 minutes -- I have to stop at 15 or keep playing for 30 minutes even though I didn't want to.

 

[MChao1]

Not just console ports. DIablo 3 too.

 

[Dankk]

Go ahead. Play Skyrim that way. 100+ hours in one sitting... LOL Ouch.

To be fair, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Quicksaving makes sense for an open-world game like Skyrim. For Max Payne 3, it's not so necessary. (The checkpoints in MP3 are close enough together that it shouldn't bother anyone anyway.)

PCs and consoles are both 100% capable of using a "save anywhere" system. It's not a hardware limitation anymore. It's strictly a design decision. Nice job trying to blame it on consoles anyway, OP. If you want to bash consoles, you can certainly do a better job than that.

Quicksaving's main problem is that you have absolutely zero consequence for dying. Take a game like Serious Sam, for example, which has no checkpoints whatsoever other than between the levels (which are huge). A buddy of mine who mashes F5 every two seconds has absolutely no reason to fear death. Meanwhile, as someone who regularly forgets to quicksave, dying will cause me to be reset all the way at back at the beginning of the level.

The checkpoint system is a good compromise between the two. Saves are spaced out reasonably from each other, and you still have good reason to value your life when low on health. Game designers intend the game to be experienced this way. This is the way they want you to play it.

And no, games with quicksave aren't necessarily "better" or "more fun" than without. What's the entire appeal of Day Z? You can spend hundreds of hours in that game on a single character, and then get shot at any time without expecting it... making you permanently lose everything. Some people actually enjoy that kind of brutality. Makes the game more intense (but I'll admit, Day Z is a pretty far out example of this).

Edit: I derped

 

[Sulaco]

Jamming f5 after every encounter is much more annoying than having to play through a small section again when you die. Also when you forget to hit that f5 then having to play an entire level over again is a real blast.

Yeah man.

That .5-1 second of having to move your fingers 3 inches farther up the keyboard is so much more of a hassle then replaying the same part over and over again.

Awesome first post.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Max Payne 3 had some bad checkpoint design, when a checkpoint forces you to redo the same 5 minute section over and over again just to fail right at the end then something is wrong with the design of that checkpoint.

Some games don't bother me much as the checkpoints are placed smartly. When a checkpoint is placed in a good place like where I would have quicksaved anyway then it is a non issue. Playing GTA: Liberty City Stories, specifically was a pleasant experience as when I died during there was a similar system in place that will warp you back to the part of the mission where you failed, usually only a minute or two before I died and usually I got it right the second time.

Fatigue is a real thing and I find that if I was forced to endure an intense mission and right at the end there is a hard part that I fudged due to fatigue it is easy to regroup with smart save design and get it right the second time.

 

[gorcorps]

Max Payne 3 had some bad checkpoint design, when a checkpoint forces you to redo the same 5 minute section over and over again just to fail right at the end then something is wrong with the design of that checkpoint.

Funny, because when I read this I think something is wrong with that person.

 

[thespyder]

To be fair, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Quicksaving makes sense for an open-world game like Skyrim. For Max Payne 3, it's not so necessary. (The checkpoints in MP3 are close enough together that it shouldn't bother anyone anyway.)

PCs and consoles are both 100% capable of using a "save anywhere" system. It's not a hardware limitation anymore. It's strictly a design decision. Nice job trying to blame it on consoles anyway, OP. If you want to bash consoles, you can certainly do a better job than that.

Quicksaving's main problem is that you have absolutely zero consequence for dying. Take a game like Serious Sam, for example, which has no checkpoints whatsoever other than between the levels (which are huge). A buddy of mine who mashes F5 every two seconds has absolutely no reason to fear death. Meanwhile, as someone who regularly forgets to quicksave, dying will cause me to be reset all the way at back at the beginning of the level.

The checkpoint system is a good compromise between the two. Saves are spaced out reasonably from each other, and you still have good reason to value your life when low on health. Game designers intend the game to be experienced this way. This is the way they want you to play it.

And no, games with quicksave aren't necessarily "better" or "more fun" than without. What's the entire appeal of Day Z? You can spend hundreds of hours in that game on a single character, and then get shot at any time without expecting it... making you permanently lose everything. Some people actually enjoy that kind of brutality. Makes the game more intense (but I'll admit, Day Z is a pretty far out example of this).

Edit: I derped

Most games today are made with little or no consequences for dying no matter what the scenario. Pretty much all you have is the extra time since the last save.

Personally, I think that static save points are an archaic method and should be done away with entirely. It's a GAME. It isn't going to hurt anyone if someone needs the extra save points where someone else doesn't. If you don't want the handicap of often saving, don't use it. Pure and simple.

 

[Grooveriding]

Not just console ports. DIablo 3 too.

Diablow 3 is a console game basically. It's going to be coming out on console, they are already working on it.

Failure of a game. I puked a little when I saw they turned Diablo into a console styled game. It felt like playing an FPS with all the checkpoints and spam about how many things I just killed.

 

[Veliko]

Diablow 3 is a console game basically. It's going to be coming out on console, they are already working on it.

Failure of a game. I puked a little when I saw they turned Diablo into a console styled game. It felt like playing an FPS with all the checkpoints and spam about how many things I just killed.

Diablo has always been an arcade game. It's just a posh Gauntlet, nothing more.

 

[Veliko]

To be honest, in shooter games, I prefer well-placed automatic save points. If I have to keep saving manually in something like Max Payne, it takes away the immersion.

Rather than wondering whether I should save every time I clear out a room, I can just plough on through without having to worry about it.

 

[QueBert]

Swat III/IV were the best in this aspect, they didn't have a save feature, and they didn't have check points either. You beat the mission in 1 attempt or you had to start over from the beginning. The icing on the cake was the missions played out 100% dynamic, so no amount of replaying would get you ready for what's to come. My roomie has MP3, while I generally like the game, I don't like the fact the check points are obvious due to the cut scenes for every one. And the static nature makes replying parts unexciting to me. I wish there were more totally dynamic games with no saving until you beat the mission.

I think I'm going to go dig up my Swat IV CD and install it

 

[Via]

The Steam version of Alan Wake has checkpoints, and only saves to the cloud.

Is that good or bad? I'm not sure.

I can already tell I'll only play this game once, but I'd still like the option to save to my HD.

 

[Dankk]

The Steam version of Alan Wake has checkpoints, and only saves to the cloud.

Is that good or bad? I'm not sure.

I can already tell I'll only play this game once, but I'd still like the option to save to my HD.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it kept on both? First and foremost it's saved to your HD, and then the save is uploaded to the cloud. If you play the game on another computer, the save downloads from the cloud to your HD. Vice versa, versa visa.

To be honest, in shooter games, I prefer well-placed automatic save points. If I have to keep saving manually in something like Max Payne, it takes away the immersion.

Rather than wondering whether I should save every time I clear out a room, I can just plough on through without having to worry about it.

That's a good point. When you have quicksave at your disposal, you begin worrying about when is a good place to save. ("There's a huge room in front of me... impending boss fight? Should I save? I just picked up a nuclear missle launcher right here. Big fight coming up?")

Definitely takes you out of the immersion a little.

 

[thejunglegod]

Quicksaving definitely takes you away from complete game immersion. I remember how i kept hitting F5 over and over and over in the golden days till a point that it became an integral part of my keyboard.

Well placed checkpoints are brilliant, something like what Mass Effect does, you can quicksave in the open world, but in between battles, there are checkpoints.

And about MP3, lets not just rant about it more please. The enemy AI was scripted and blended well with the cinematic feel of the game. Adding a quicksave option would've seriosuly spoilt the fun IMO.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It's best to have both and let the user decide what they want to use.

Quicksave is my personal preference, why? Because I don't like to have to re-do parts of games I've already done, in singleplayer games I'm more interested in the story being told and having fun, I'm not interested in overcoming some epic challenge or proving I can do a boss that's unreasonably difficult.

It's actually just anoying and frustrating to go back and do 5 minutes of gameplay I've literally just completed for no other reason than the developer thinks they know what's best for me when they could just offer both systems and let me pick what I KNOW is best for me.

Yes quicksave often removes the challenge from the game, and some of us prefer it that way, checkpoints are just a smart idea in case people forget to quicksave or they wish to have the developers dictate to them exactly how much of the game they should re-play when they die.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Quicksaving definitely takes you away from complete game immersion. I remember how i kept hitting F5 over and over and over in the golden days till a point that it became an integral part of my keyboard.

Opposite is true for me, nothing takes me out of the game more than dying, being put back 10-15 minutes and having to re-do the same section over and over, the flow of the game and story become non-linear, imagine having to watch the same part of a movie or read the same part of a book, over and over...it makes for extremely bad immersion.

 

[Veliko]

Opposite is true for me, nothing takes me out of the game more than dying, being put back 10-15 minutes and having to re-do the same section over and over, the flow of the game and story become non-linear, imagine having to watch the same part of a movie or read the same part of a book, over and over...it makes for extremely bad immersion.

Imagine pressing F6 whilst watching a film over, and over again, it would be crap.