Save point vs check point

[Thin Crust]

That's right, I made a versus thread. So what?

Back in the old days, there were no check points. Maybe some, but mostly it was all about the save points. Combine this with the fact that games were much harder a few generations back, it was all about memorize and repeat. Now with checkpoints stationed after almost every minute of an fps or like God of War had them every couple of minutes, things just seem much easier. I just went through my 15 ps3 games and 12 of them have checkpoints. 13 if you count Heavy Rain. Heck, in that game, there isn't even a game over. Before checkpoints with the memorize and repeat, you had to carefully plan you next move and it really made you take the game more seriously. But now it seems like all gamers want is to go through the game as fast as they can without even marveling at the great graphics that the developers are working so hard to give us. What do you think? Has the implementation of check points made games too easy and casual? Or do you think dying an unfair death an hour after your last save should never happen again?

[Ferret]

I'm all for the use of checkpoints in games like FPSes and platformers, Having to go through a frustrating and difficult battle fifteen times because the next one after that one killed you does not make for a good gaming experience. Another reason I like checkpoints is because they keep the story moving, so you don't have to sit through a cutscene twelve times because your ass sucks at not dying.

[RoeTaKa]

Depends really. I'm playing Mass Effect 1 on PC for the first time at the moment and there are times where I've just turned the game off because I made alot of progress and was absorbed into the game and then died...forgetting I hadn't saved in a very long time. I presumed there would be some sort of checkpoint system but apparently not...not a good one anyway. So you gotta quick save every so often which feels a bit like cheating.

I think saving should be considered a rest. You're not supposed to play games for very long anyways (if you listen to health and safety) so they should be perfect break times to save. Level structures should have checkpoints but yeah some games give you a checkpoint every 10 seconds for some reason, thank you crap gamers. If a game is fun then an abundance of checkpoints would ruin it, take Super Mario World it has great gameplay and you get a midway checkpoint, perfect.

[Arcana]

I'm all for the use of checkpoints in games like FPSes and platformers, Having to go through a frustrating and difficult battle fifteen times because the next one after that one killed you does not make for a good gaming experience. Another reason I like checkpoints is because they keep the story moving, so you don't have to sit through a cutscene twelve times because your ass sucks at not dying.

This.

Having to remember to save at every save point is dumb. Putting them far apart is even dumber.

I don't want to play a game so I can play through the first 20 waves of boring, easy-to-kill enemies. I want to play so I can get past that super hard boss or to get that super hard secret item. Make a game hard, not tedious.

[HalcyonSpirit]

I'm all for the use of checkpoints in games like FPSes and platformers, Having to go through a frustrating and difficult battle fifteen times because the next one after that one killed you does not make for a good gaming experience. Another reason I like checkpoints is because they keep the story moving, so you don't have to sit through a cutscene twelve times because your ass sucks at not dying.

I suppose the real argument, then, would be whether or not the checkpoints are too close together? I agree with the notion that having checkpoints too close together makes it easy to run through a section to get to the next checkpoint. On the other hand, make them too far apart and you run into those issues you brought up. Checkpoints need to be strategically placed so that the sections in between are challenging but avoid putting back-to-back two or more very challenging sections that one would presumably die on.

I view checkpoints as "soft" save points, in that you only have the last one you created but can be placed a little closer together than the actual save points. In this way, if you really screwed something up in your planning or whatever and you'd have to go back more than one checkpoint to fix it, you have to go back to the last save point (probably three or more checkpoints further back) as a sort of "punishment" for not properly planning, but if it was a minor thing, you can just go back to the last checkpoint and try again.

[Zombie]

I prefer the autosave feature in games like ratchet and clank future: a crack in time.

It's like check points and save points, combined.

[Sixto]

Back in the day I don't think games took up to 40 hours to finish.

[Arcana]

Yeah, they did. Old RPGs like FFIV took 40 hours for me when I was a kid. FF7 took like 60 hours. Secret of Mana was about 15 hours I think, possibly longer.

But of course as I grew older the old NES and SNES games became much faster to clear and as you got good at them they became easy (I beat Chrono Trigger for the first time with all of the sidequests in under 25 hours).

Often they took longer than 40 hours, but the game simply didn't tell you because if you died and it made you reset from your last save point, it (obviously) didn't record the time spent since you last died.

NES games of course didn't take that long especially since most of them didn't have batteries, and the longer games used a password system (ahhh Faxanadu's 60+ character long strings).

[Thin Crust]

I suppose the real argument, then, would be whether or not the checkpoints are too close together? I agree with the notion that having checkpoints too close together makes it easy to run through a section to get to the next checkpoint. On the other hand, make them too far apart and you run into those issues you brought up. Checkpoints need to be strategically placed so that the sections in between are challenging but avoid putting back-to-back two or more very challenging sections that one would presumably die on.

I view checkpoints as "soft" save points, in that you only have the last one you created but can be placed a little closer together than the actual save points. In this way, if you really screwed something up in your planning or whatever and you'd have to go back more than one checkpoint to fix it, you have to go back to the last save point (probably three or more checkpoints further back) as a sort of "punishment" for not properly planning, but if it was a minor thing, you can just go back to the last checkpoint and try again.

Do you really think that would be a punishment? Sounds like standard backtracking to me. Lots of games use this technique. (I'm looking at you legacy of Kain)

And while I'm on this tangent, anyone notice a resemblence between Raziel and Zeratul?

[Gollgagh]

in that both of them are humanoid with an energy sword strapped to their wrists, sure

[Doulifée]

I'm all for the use of checkpoints in games like FPSes and platformers, Having to go through a frustrating and difficult battle fifteen times because the next one after that one killed you does not make for a good gaming experience. Another reason I like checkpoints is because they keep the story moving, so you don't have to sit through a cutscene twelve times because your ass sucks at not dying.

i prefer free saving. whenever you want. checkpoint are usually badly implemented too so you still need to kill bazillion time the first wave of guy to try once again the elite mook behind them. (i'm looking at you singularity)

[Cerrax]

I like how Borderlands had the New-U stations that were both autosave points and checkpoints. I also like that they placed them so that if you died, you weren't penalized by loading a previous save, but you placed far enough from where the objective was that it totally sucked to get killed.

[Koriantor]

I like the occasional autosave or checkpoint or whatever you want to call them. I'm a habitual quick-saver so having a save every once in a while is good so I can fall back on it if my quick saving screws up things. There were some frustrating times (Mass Effect was one example) but most of the time, it was about time for me to stop playing anyway, so it wasn't all that much of a punishment, and more of a reminder, I should probably play later. The quick-save/autosave set up works really well for PC gaming.

Consoles might have a harder time with it I suppose, due to a lack of a quick-save button.

[Native Jovian]

I think even save points are for suckers. I demand that games go back to having no progress-saving method whatsoever but for passwords. The use of passwords is the mark of a REAL gamer. If it takes utterly random 30-character alphanumeric strings to pull it off, then so be it.

Otherwise it's not hardcore enough.

[BardicKnowledge]

I think even save points are for suckers. I demand that games go back to having no progress-saving method whatsoever but for passwords. The use of passwords is the mark of a REAL gamer. If it takes utterly random 30-character alphanumeric strings to pull it off, then so be it.

Otherwise it's not hardcore enough.

Ever finish Golden Sun 2 by carrying over a GS1 save?

[StarZander]

I think even save points are for suckers. I demand that games go back to having no progress-saving method whatsoever but for passwords. The use of passwords is the mark of a REAL gamer. If it takes utterly random 30-character alphanumeric strings to pull it off, then so be it.

Otherwise it's not hardcore enough.

I say let's take it one step further back, and just have it so that if you turn off the power or reset the game, you have to start from the beginning of the game again. No passwords, no save files, nothing. Just beat it all in one sitting.

[Cerrax]

I forget what game it was (Eternal Darkness maybe?) that you could save at any time, but if you died, the game wiped out your save file.

That is hardcore. Also cheap as hell.

[Tensei]

I forget what game it was (Eternal Darkness maybe?) that you could save at any time, but if you died, the game wiped out your save file.

That is hardcore. Also cheap as hell.

It wasn't Eternal Darkness, which was awesome for entirely different reasons. The sanity effects were so fourth-wall breaking that the game would randomly pretend to delete your save file, mess with your TVs volume control, reset, or even show a windows BSOD.

Diablo 2 had a hardcore mode that wiped your character if you died.

[AJ-enova]

I think checkpoints are necessary because in games like the older Final Fantasy and other games like Red Faction, you had to decide when to save. There were no levels where it would remind you like 'Do you want to save your game?' And if you died you could potentially get sent so far back you wouldn't want to play the game again. Like in Granmd Theft Auto IV if there was a 'Drive across the city followed by shootout' mission and you died in the shootout you'd have to drive ALL the way across the city again!

[The Dual Dragons]

I like save points and check points. I like to feel constant progress when I play but I also like having the choice of loading an older file in case I missed something.

[Thin Crust]

I think even save points are for suckers. I demand that games go back to having no progress-saving method whatsoever but for passwords. The use of passwords is the mark of a REAL gamer. If it takes utterly random 30-character alphanumeric strings to pull it off, then so be it.

Otherwise it's not hardcore enough.

But passworded levels wouldn't work for games where you have an option of equipment to have or story elements that could be taken to different directions. Actually, this system would only work in the most linear of games.

[cobaltstarfire]

But passworded levels wouldn't work for games where you have an option of equipment to have or story elements that could be taken to different directions. Actually, this system would only work in the most linear of games.

I would suggest you play Golden Sun.

As someone else mentioned...long password is long, and it records equipment, dijini, and stats atleast.

[Doulifée]

I say let's take it one step further back, and just have it so that if you turn off the power or reset the game, you have to start from the beginning of the game again. No passwords, no save files, nothing. Just beat it all in one sitting.

i know a guy who did that with tomb raider, he didn't turn off is PSX for month.

[Strike911]

Kind of depends on the game for me. I like checkpoints/autosaves because it's automatic and I don't really have to worry about it. Some manual save systems just take me out of the experience, while checkpoints and autosaves feel a little more natural.

That said, I like checkpoints that have been balanced and placed in a specific spot by a HUMAN BEING. These autosave/auto-checkpoints that exist in some games are TORTURE at times. Like Call of Duty 4, I remember playing single player working my way to bad position and the game suddenly autosaves my progress right there. When I died, I was set up to die the exact same way over and over again from the exact same place which was really frustrating. And at that point, when I'm respawning a few seconds back in time, I know the guy that's shooting me, so I start doing weird things to just kill the enemy, which kind of feels like breaking the game in the way. So.. yeah, checkpoints/autosaves are nice, but there are too many games that just let the game periodically save when it's not necessarily in your best interest in-game.

Sometimes though the nostalgia of having to go to an Inn to save is kind of nice though. A little rougher on the player in this day and age, but still delightfully nostalgic.

[The Author]

The way I see it: save points for when you turn the game off, check points for when you die. Best of both worlds really.