Do you like quick save or save at checkpoint?.....

T

tirujitbasak

Disciple
There are two kinda save option in games, one is u can save anywhere by using quicksave like in fallout 3, stalker clear sky etc or the game will be automatically save after completing a substage (they do have some checkpoint kinda thing) like in mafia, gears of war, bionic commando etc ......

I personally do not like this quicksave becasue they actually spoil the fun specially in stealth based games. In my opinion, games should have a checkpoint systems or no save possibilities at all during the missions.

So guys plz share ur views regarding this point .... :)
 
Savepoints at the end of missions is a PITA especially if you like to play at harder difficulties like I do. That said, quicksaves do take away some of the fun because you tend to keep saving every other second. A checkpoint system works for me as long they are not too few and far between.
 
Both are equally useful!

Like you have to go somewhere and u are in a middle of a level where u cant save then u'd have to repeat it all over again! :(
 
whatever the option be, there should always be an option to save just after completing something hard or long substage. there is nothing more frustrating then redoing it :(
 
frosty said:
whatever the option be, there should always be an option to save just after completing something hard or long substage. there is nothing more frustrating then redoing it :(
Click to expand...

exactly. while most games do auto-save after some tough part, some games have a large gap between checkpoints and it gets irritating sometimes.
 
I like the Hitman Concept, Though its sort of like quick-save, but it's limited. So it maintains the fun of the game, but removes the possibility of Cheating (I call pressing F5 every time you kill someone as cheating :p)
 
Thirding the hitman save method. I loved completing the last on in a no-save run.

The checkpoint system is fine in but delivers a lot of problems when some games don't implement it well.

I hat it when you are left with low health or no ammo right at the save point, which in some games means you are screwed till the next checkpoint.
 
^I would say FarCry - That jungle level, where you had to cross on bridges with Trigens and Soldiers. Jeez, had to do it so many times.
 
it depends, if I'm able to clear the mission in 1-3 go then who has the time to think about quick save. if I'm not then offcourse quick save is handy..
 
PhOeNiX said:
^I would say FarCry - That jungle level, where you had to cross on bridges with Trigens and Soldiers. Jeez, had to do it so many times.
Click to expand...

Did you mean the level where Jack'd be kicked out of the chopper with just a gun and few bullets in the cartridge to jump down a water-fall sorts? Oh boy that was indeed hard! :eek:hyeah:

I used to crawl in those lowly waters, keeping the fingers crossed, expecting a trigen to pounce on me!
 
i personally like the save concept which is used in dead space, you can save manually only at certain locations but if you die while playing you resume from a invisible checkpoint over which the player has no control.
 
i like the convenience of quick save, as i can't play for longer periods at a stretch..

that said auto-saves after completing some hard tasks is also good.....

for the mission based auto-saves, the worst happens when the game crashes....happened to me a lot plaing GTA- VC...cos in that after completing the mission we had to go to the house to save the game.....good thing it has been improved in GTA IV
 
Auto check points without the option of saving any check point in FarCry made the damn game one of my favourite FPS games ever. However in Crysis and Warhead that quick save option gave me confidence to play it "rambo style" hence both are good imo.
 
games with less than 10 hrs gameplay should have checkpoint system and for big games like fallout 3 (40 hrs + gameplay) quick save is necessity.I prefer both ,just depends on what I am playing.
 
Back
Top