[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

[/QUOTE] You forgot that most games that use quick save systems forget to implement other save options. Quicksave / quickload = crap. Laziness on the developer's part.

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Cool opinion bro.

Seems like you've never heard of Dark Souls, or have never considered just NOT quick saving.

[/QUOTE] You forgot that most games that use quick save systems forget to implement other save options. Quicksave / quickload = crap. Laziness on the developer's part.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

[/QUOTE]

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I don't have the time nor interest to play the same segment of a game over and over again.

[/QUOTE] Then why play videogames? Why not just watch a movie? Or read a book? What's the point of interacting with the game if there's nothing preventing you from getting from the start to the finish? [/QUOTE] Fun, entertainment, something that completely goes over your head it seems. You're not cool if you manage to beat games, nobody cares a single bit, the games are however bad if they become frustrating, because of bad checkpoints and such.[/QUOTE] We will never agree on this subject because we have diverging opinions. What's so fun about blowing through a game without dying or difficulty? I mean, do you have fun solving little kids puzzles? Why not just turn on God-mode and play through all your games? Why ruin it for the people who enjoy the original concept of what a videogame is? You don't like games to have replayability? So many questions...

Your idea of fun is the complete opposite of mine (and most people who play videogames). A typical videogame, to me, have always been based around the idea of an incrementing challenge, and any game that can't at least provide a challenge has failed in my eyes. A better way of going about it is making a game that's challenging, and then give all the gamers who don't like a challenge an easier mode.

For people who can't comprehend what I'm talking about, wrap your mind around this: If Dark Souls or Demons Souls was based around the quicksave/quickload dynamic, they wouldn't be nearly as recognized or acclaimed as they are today.

Once you realize the truth behind the bolded statement, then you'll see the truth behind my argument. Games that are too easy are simply not as fun as they could be. The real tragedy behind it is that difficulty is only a small aspect of the game's development, so to see games ruined by poor difficulty balancing is really sad. The keyword is balance. A game's difficulty should try to appeal to everyone, not just their target audience (little kids).

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

[/QUOTE]

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

[/QUOTE]

Not really, quick save systems have existed for years and generally work well with the game they are in. If someone dies and didn't save in a while they have to go back to that point, but if they saved in a bad spot then they have to fight their way through or revert to an earlier save.

Quick saves might make things easier, but they are nowhere on the level of giving a player infinite ammo or health. If it bothers you so much you can just rely on the auto save and never save yourself, but games can still be challenging with quick saves and it doesn't impact my entertainment of Max Payne whether it uses quick save or a checkpoint system, since either way I still have to avoid dying and still have a drawback to death.

[/QUOTE]

Most games that have quicksave/quickloads don't put much focus on autosaves or checkpoints, which was my point. Quick saves are on the level of infinite ammo/health/etc. Assuming that you're saving for every successful step you take.... Lose health? Reload. Need ammo? Reload. Set yourself up for a tough spot down the road? Reload.

So explain to me, how's that different than god mode?

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I don't think there's anything wrong with quick saves, they let players save when they want, and why not? They work well with some games, though I do see your point in that they have players do the developer's job of pacing difficulty.

Of course I do prefer developers implement a good checkpoint system for the difficulty with a mix of saving. After playing so many games where I can sort of spam saves to not ever lose or make a wrong choice, it seems like the best option would be to implement a checkpoint system in combat. Mass Effect 3 does a really great job, if you die you are punished and have to go back to the beginning of the battle, but you can save anytime you want outside of combat.

I also think limiting saves is an ok option, but it can be frustrating if we don't know when's the best time to use them up.

[/QUOTE]

Because it encourages players to abuse the save system to beat the game obviously. They might as well give the player infinite life/health/ammo/etc. because it's virtually the exact same thing as having a quick-save system.

[/QUOTE]

And for the record, Dark Souls and Demon's Souls do have a sort of quick save option. If you quit anywhere in the game, it saves you at that exact point you will spawn, with enemies you've killed remaining dead until you yourself die and spawn back at the start, Amnesia also has a sort of quick save in allowing you to save and exit but it doesn't impact the way death works and its still an incredibly challenging game because of the puzzles (that can't really be affected by how you save) and death taking you back to a checkpoint anyways.

[/QUOTE]

That fact that you would compare these two save systems shows that you haven't put a lot of thought into it.

In terms of balance, they aren't similar at all. Think about it really quickly and get back to me on it. The difference between quicksaving and the system that DS has is pretty damn big.