Quick save or check points

Throughout the history of gaming there has been the frustration of not being able to get past a point in a game, and equally how to save your current progress within a game.

But which method works the best? Which one do you prefer and why?

Check points were the first solution to this problem, and still used a lot in many games.

Early check points involved giving you a level code one competition of a level. This solution is great for puzzle games, where each level is a separate entity and the achievement is in beating each level one at a time.

However in more recent games you build up scores, collect items or weapons, and score bonuses and rewards as you play. If you just had a level code then these would all be lost each time you switched off.

Next came the check point saving. Instead of being given a code or saving your progress at the end of each level you had points within a level to reach. Small goals that once reached meant you didn't need to repeat anything before that point. This works brilliantly in platform games such as Tomb Raider or the recent Trine.

With the advent of First Person Shooters the Quick Save was introduced. The ability to hit a key at any point in the game and save your progress with an exact snapshot of your game to that point. This is great to remove the frustration of needing to repeat something, but it also removes skill involved in perfecting a part of a game to reach a check point or end of level.

One solution some developers tried with quick save was to limit the number of times you could quick save. Fine in theory, but not if you used them all up before a really difficult section and then needed more to actually progress.

One other solution is the pay to save system. Resident Evil for example has you collecting ink ribbons. You could then use these to save your progress at key locations within the game world on a typewriter. I think this solution works best if done well. It allows you to save as often as you wish (if you have the item or money to pay to save), but it removes the ability to save every 5 seconds in order to safe guard against needing to repeat anything.

So what do you prefer and why?

I voted for quicksave, because that way it's up to you if you want to save or not, and also for a gamer like me, meaning casual, it's easier to be able to save when you want. You kill one enemy, save, next enemy, save, jump over a clip, save... It saves me a lot of time redoing a whole scene over and over again.

But I have to say that it really depends of the game. I hate it f.ex. when you only have few save points in RPGs, because sometimes you have cutscenes for 30 minutes, you die straight after, reload from last save point and have to redo the cutscene again, when there's no skip function available. But then again on the world map you can save freely, which is great when levelling up, but they should allow that any time through the game.

I also like the ckeckpoint system, but of course if there's quite many checkpoints. I think a combination of checkpoints and quicksave would be great, in case you forgot to save, you still will have the checkpoint.

Most annoying thing for me though, is when it's not possible saving during a mission. Imagine a frustrating passage, then once you pass it, you're not able to save, then you die, and have to do the whole thing again. This makes me often stop playing a game!

EDIT: Oops, I replied before you edited the thread.

I can change your vote if you wanted to vote for something else instead?

For me:

exact snapshot of your game

I like to have the exact situation when i resume a game:

Quote:

---

because sometimes you have cutscenes for 30 minutes, you die straight after, reload from last save point and have to redo the cutscene again

---

this is the major reason, also also to keep exact weapons, and player positions, good forr that difficult level that you can't pass...

I HATED the resi ink-ribbon saving. I can see the idea behind it, but as I don't have time to spend hours in one sitting playing it annoyed the hell out of me.

Personally, I like the idea of checkpoints but with a one off suspend save mode... so if I need to put down the controller suddenly, I can save my progress but can't use it as a restore point should I get killed by the next boss or want to try again but f.ex using less ammo.

I have no problem with abusing quicksaves though, as I am pretty casual. Sometimes though it can spoil the feel of things, however.

I chose "It depends on the game"...
My current "state of the mind" isn't fixated properly that I could give some good examples, but, let's see...

Even though I loved the game, I hated the save points in FF7 that were placed so far from each other at the early parts of the game. When you finally entered the world map it got better...

Now I'm playing Dead Space and I love it how you can't save everywhere and the Save Stations are located strategically in the exact areas the player needs them.
Add much to the atmosphere imho.

Didn't like auto saving in CoD5, sometimes the areas took to long to repeat...

Loved saving-everywhere in most FPSes, I'm not kind of a person that reloads the game after loosing 1 bullet or life point, but I like to enjoy the fast action and let it stay that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

I can change your vote if you wanted to vote for something else instead?

---

No, it's ok, I'll stick with that. I only would like to have the option "save your game whenever you want".

The problem with 'save wherever you want, whenever you want' systems is that it kinda detracts from the game experience, since you're essentially invulnerable. It takes away the challenge and feeling of accomplishment, turning a game which is supposed to be an adrenaline rush into a leisurely walk in the park.

With checkpoints, you always have to be on your toes, because you simply don't want to die and be sent to the previous checkpoint - that alone adds a level of tension which is quite important, I feel, in any game. What J T mentioned is actually a good way of doing it: allow someone to suspend the game, but only allow that save point to be reloaded once.

That said, I do hate games which have checkpoints spaced out too far apart.

Anyway, I suppose it also depends on the type of game. For RTS games, for example, a checkpoint system obviously doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharingan

The problem with 'save wherever you want, whenever you want' systems is that it kinda detracts from the game experience, since you're essentially invulnerable. It takes away the challenge and feeling of accomplishment, turning a game which is supposed to be an adrenaline rush into a leisurely walk in the park.

---

I meant the opportunity to have it, nobody is forced to use it. I like walks in the park ;)

The same counts for cheats, as I'm the casual gamer, and most games start to become too difficult for me at a certain point, I would welcome a cheat option. And again, nobody would be forced to use it, it's up to everyone. But I simply wanna finish my games, and not pay full price for a game I can only play half way through, because I don't have the skills to finish it.

Sharingan,
i get your point, and i think is very valid for the typical gamer, that has a good amount of time. But for that people that can only have 3 or 4 hours a week, so, less then 30 minutes a day, the "exact snapshot save" should be the best because it allow to fast continue the game and don't loose so many time doing that part o f the level again.

With so many games around, and so good games, i prefer to play 2 games and finnish then in a more easy way then play and finnish only 1 not so easy.

That's why i don't choose in FPS games level "hard" or "difficult" and i prefer the "easy" or "medium", not that i could not finnish in a higher difficulty, but it would take me much more time, time that i could spend with other game.

One game I think had perfect check points was the original first Tomb Raider. They always seemed to be placed exactly where you needed them, either just before, or just after a big event. And as they were crystals you collected and could use then or later it added to the ability to save them up and save later if you felt you were OK.

I also felt that with Dead Space, as Shoonay already mentioned, they placed the save points very good, although it had a small negative side effect, almost every time there was a save point, you knew that there was something happening shortly after, thus taking away a bit of the suspense.

One game that really annoys me with save points is the final fantasy series. So far between save points...ugggg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demon Cleaner

I also felt that with Dead Space, as Shoonay already mentioned, they placed the save points very good, although it had a small negative side effect, almost every time there was a save point, you knew that there was something happening shortly after, thus taking away a bit of the suspense.

---

Hmmm, I tend to agree. Not only that, but it was very tempting to play it like a pussy and go into a room, kill things, return to the save point, then go a bit further forward, kill, go back save again etc etc.