+Warwagon MVC Posted August 7, 2010 Author MVC Share Posted August 7, 2010 Half-life series: laughable easy as you can just save every feet and people do that. I friend of mine was really proud to have completed both games ( Not sure about the episodes for the second ) on the highest difficulty level and I gave him a verbal pat on the shoulder. I then caught a glimpse of him playing a level on his laptop and sure enough, he was saving every freaking time he got a kill almost and I was just stunned, he died so often and he just loaded his last save straight away and kept on running - It was so pathetic, I actually gave the guy credit when all he did was suck and let the game carry him through almost? So you thought he was pathetic. I could care less if he saved his way through the entire game. At the end of the day, if he enjoyed playing the game, then that's all that maters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 It's too bad that this day and age, people don't want to have options for others. I hate selfishness. You obviously don't read whatsoever. The challenge needs to be set by the developers, not by ourselves - Divide it by the difficulty level. As I said, extremely simple solution; divide it by the difficulty level you choose and let the higher levels be based on checkpoints perhaps, everyone's happy. just to say it yet again, divide it up by difficulty level - I don't care what they do on Easy / Normal, just add a checkpoint system ( or something similar ) on everything above. So you thought he was pathetic. I could care less if he saved his way through the entire game. At the end of the day, if he enjoyed playing the game, then that's all that maters. Couldn't care less* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyJordan Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 (snipped) Getting back on topic, I agree with Warwagon and Sethos. Games are too easy when they let you save at any state. It made Fallout 3 and Oblivion a breeze for me. That kind of saving should be limited to the easier difficulties. Let the casuals breeze through it, and let the hardcores rage through it. Sure, it takes 10x longer, but it gives a great satisfaction in the end. I know this from playing through almost all of the Call of Duty games (the first and third being the exception) on Veteran difficulty. I also played through Halo 3 solo on Legendary difficulty, but man, the final mission was annoying for me. It took me over an hour just to fight my way up and into the control room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 I don't thinkg that you should be bottered with a game auto saving every 5 to 10 min, but there should be a system set up that when you reach a certain section in the game " like a boss or a difficult area or a climax in the story" the game should save. +1 Why should that matter? Games are supposed to be fun. Playing for an hour, then dying and going all the way back to the start is not what I consider fun. It does make it more of a challenge though, some people enjoy the challenge :) Some games seem to have got it right, giving you less saves on the higher difficulty settings. Maybe they should just enable everyone playing it on easy infinite saves, but give more rewards/epeen points to people who play the game without them. Boy does this thread make me miss the original sonics though, no saves for the entire game :D Die once, back to the start of level! Lose all your lives... say bye bye to the last few hours you've spent playing :D That reallly made dying mean something. Nowadays in most games it hardly matters if you die, because you'll be playing the same bit again with no negative consequences inside of a few seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 Half-life series: laughable easy as you can just save every feet and people do that. I friend of mine was really proud to have completed both games ( Not sure about the episodes for the second ) on the highest difficulty level and I gave him a verbal pat on the shoulder. I then caught a glimpse of him playing a level on his laptop and sure enough, he was saving every freaking time he got a kill almost and I was just stunned, he died so often and he just loaded his last save straight away and kept on running - It was so pathetic, I actually gave the guy credit when all he did was suck and let the game carry him through almost? Unreal Awakening: I remember watching a guy at the local netcaf? play this game shorty after release and the guy was also constantly saving almost at every turn, asked him why, "I just want to get through it :D" - Awesome, let me complete that game on some insane difficulty level so I can get be among guys like that, oh yeah! Those are two examples that have been burned into my mind, I know there's loads more examples but they escape me right this second. As I said, extremely simple solution; divide it by the difficulty level you choose and let the higher levels be based on checkpoints perhaps, everyone's happy. Me completing a game on a high difficulty level is a plethora of things that come into play; I want a challenge, I want the gratification of completing something that is hard and the more inaccessible the game is, the bigger the gratification. When I know the game is very hard and very testing, something the casual player won't attempt, the completion of the game is so much sweeter. Just saying "I won't save" removes the gratification, removes all the pride in completing the game because you know any idiot could do it. Prime example are the Call of Duty series on Veteran - Such an intensive, frustrating and testing experience that I know very in my friends circles to have attempted and thus the gratification for me is that much bigger. I saw some numbers a long time ago for the "Mile High Club" achievement on the 360 ( Last level on veteran ) and the number was extremely low, even with all the people getting through by watching videos and guides it was still an intense mission that required skill and luck - One of the best missions ever. Most of my favourite games are based on checkpoint saves and it enhances the game experience about 2000% and just to say it yet again, divide it up by difficulty level - I don't care what they do on Easy / Normal, just add a checkpoint system ( or something similar ) on everything above. No wonder game developer's are struggling in this day and age, not only are games expensive as hell to create but they have to be made so easy to get through, people are done within a day and then they just crave more, blame the developers for a short game and lack of imagination - Why the hell waste months and months on some of this stuff when people miss half of it. It was bad enough with the health generation crap that every game suffers. The Half-Life series has a checkpoint save system as well as a quicksave system, so I'm not really sure of your example in this instance. If you don't want to use it, you really don't have to, and I'd say that most people I know don't even use the quicksave system in that game at all unless it's to save exactly where they are and come back later, or if it's to save a unique part in the game they want to replay (the latter being what I do, personally). The Half-Life series is also extremely easy with or without save anywhere, I think. But the moral of your story in that situation is that you disapprove of your friend's method of playing the game. Your friend is an example of the most extreme case in a way in which hardly anyone plays any game. Yet again, however, you don't even have to use the save anywhere feature in Half-Life 2, so if you want the challenge, you get it. Your second example is the same situation. Basically, what it boils down to is this: you don't like save anywhere because you feel it cheapens the difficulty of the game for those who play without utilizing save anywhere. You don't do it even if it's there, but you don't like the option being available to others who utilize it in a way in which almost no one utilizes it. I can see that. I definitely do agree with you on your compromise, though -- if they allowed quick save/save anywhere on the settings except hard (or brutal, whatever games call difficulties above hard) it'd be a nice compromise. And, I definitely agree there are a few games in which it feels more rewarding to have quick save only -- your example of Call of Duty was exactly what I had in mind, actually. I like earning those achievements, and I'd be a little miffed if others essentially cheated to get it, because that is one of the few games I would agree is definitely intended to be that difficult, because it's far more rewarding. There are plenty of games that have absolute crap save systems, though. My earlier example of Singularity is the best that comes to mind. It has a fine checkpoint system, but it's not exactly a game with levels (and not exactly an open world game, either). If I want to go back and replay a segment of the game, I have to start the game entirely over and work my way to that point. That's just pathetic. And there are plenty of games out there like this, which is infuriating. The reason I like save anywhere is mainly just to replay segments (or if I have to leave immediately and don't want to replay a segment during my playthrough), which I'd wager is probably what most people do. I personally don't see the point in doing what the examples you gave, and I wouldn't have any fun playing like that, personally. But your compromise would be a nice option to have -- it's just a shame developers don't do that. I think it has more to do with them not wanting to add the feature than it does designing a game for that difficulty, personally, because it's been this way ever since consoles became the lead development platform. Developers that used to be strictly PC developers changed their method entirely on the issue once they started focusing on consoles first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 Project IGI - it sucked that you could only save once per mission. And when some of the missions are quite difficult, you get past a hard part and save, then have to battle the rest of the level with being able to save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Raphaël G. MVC Posted August 7, 2010 MVC Share Posted August 7, 2010 IMO saving whenever you want completely eliminates the challenge in games. If there's no negative consequence to dying in game you might as well just play the game with an invincibility cheat. Now THAT i fully agree to! There is absolutely no challenge in modern games. It got me bored a while ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 You clearly don't grasp the concept then. Read the post I made above, the "Don't use it" argument is pants-on-head retarded. It's sad people who sucks at games have to ruin it for the rest of it. The challenge needs to be set by the developers, not by ourselves - Divide it by the difficulty level. no it's not up to the devs to gimp saved game to provide a silly idea of challenge. spending an extra 15 minutes re doing a part to get to the hard part is not a challnege. lack of saved games or w/e has never stopped me from gimping myself out in mmo's to add to the challenge. my last week in l2 i wore gear that was tuned to toons 50 levels below my level. the first 2 months in wow tbc i spent at 70 i wore greens and world pvped succesffuly taking on full groups and winning. nothing stops anyone from challenging themselves by not using ht esaved game feature or by gimpiing their gear or taking on quests that are higher level or using a certain gun that's not so powerful or w/e. one time in teh original half life i was bored so i used only th ecrowbar. and this was befor ei used the mouse or wasd in fps games and i rarely quick save or manually save. but i like to have the option on every dificulty. i also hate death penaltuies in mmo's. but in l2 i spent hours gaining "extra" exp and grindining off sin eater to avoid item drops so i could PK any time i wanted and die as much as i needed to to have fun. in wow i keep extra gold on me when i play so i can just rez at the gy because i sometimes don't feel like corpse runs. hell i even died to guards one day like 10 times that cost me 90% of what little gold i had just to pk fellow RPers rp style(it was a good the bad and the ugly weekend) in that desert zone. nothing ever stops someone like you or me from doing some thing awesome hard but ourselves. and whining about others who save every 5 minutes on hard mode or grind t12 elite gear just to gank level 20s is hilarious. they don't impact on YOU"RE fun. they're not playing YOUR game for you. ps this thread has yet again degenerated into the state that has given this forum a bad rep. surprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REM2000 Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 The thing to remember about modern gaming is that it's just that, modern. Gaming is now very broad and has multiple aspects. Gaming in the 80's was about the challange, games on the spectrum / c64 were insanely hard when compared to even the hardest of games of this era, they had 1000 levels, no saves and death was always around a very small corner. Games of today are different in that some are interactive experiences, the next level of story telling. Take the HL series, the objective isn't to beat the game, it's to interact and go along with the story, playing in a movie. This is why there are instant saves as Valve want you to experience the whole game and thus see the story / movie to the end. Some games are built purely for multiplayer, such as SC2 and Counter Strike. There are casual games such as peggle and plants vs zombies, of course there are the gaming games, similar to the ones of the 80's where there is a real challenge to them. The important thing to recognise is that there is quite a diverse gaming world, some people just don't have the time to be completest, i for example after getting back from work just haven't got the time to pick up the majority of challenging games (some are bigger and easy to have ticking along in the background such as CIV4), if i played all of the games on ultra realistic then i would have the biggest backlog of games in history to catch up on. At the end of the day games are there purely for entertainment and there is certainly no right or wrong way to play them, ive see plenty of games where people have played them completely different to how the developer intended, as long as it remains fun thats all what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 The thing to remember about modern gaming is that it's just that, modern. Gaming is now very broad and has multiple aspects. Gaming in the 80's was about the challange, games on the spectrum / c64 were insanely hard when compared to even the hardest of games of this era, they had 1000 levels, no saves and death was always around a very small corner. Games of today are different in that some are interactive experiences, the next level of story telling. Take the HL series, the objective isn't to beat the game, it's to interact and go along with the story, playing in a movie. This is why there are instant saves as Valve want you to experience the whole game and thus see the story / movie to the end. Some games are built purely for multiplayer, such as SC2 and Counter Strike. There are casual games such as peggle and plants vs zombies, of course there are the gaming games, similar to the ones of the 80's where there is a real challenge to them. The important thing to recognise is that there is quite a diverse gaming world, some people just don't have the time to be completest, i for example after getting back from work just haven't got the time to pick up the majority of challenging games (some are bigger and easy to have ticking along in the background such as CIV4), if i played all of the games on ultra realistic then i would have the biggest backlog of games in history to catch up on. At the end of the day games are there purely for entertainment and there is certainly no right or wrong way to play them, ive see plenty of games where people have played them completely different to how the developer intended, as long as it remains fun thats all what matters. +1 hate to mini mod here, but guys, if what anyone here is doing is trolling, all parties involved are doing it. stop the insults and argue with reason instead of insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 The Half-Life series has a checkpoint save system as well as a quicksave system, so I'm not really sure of your example in this instance. If you don't want to use it, you really don't have to, and I'd say that most people I know don't even use the quicksave system in that game at all unless it's to save exactly where they are and come back later, or if it's to save a unique part in the game they want to replay (the latter being what I do, personally). The Half-Life series is also extremely easy with or without save anywhere, I think. But the moral of your story in that situation is that you disapprove of your friend's method of playing the game. Your friend is an example of the most extreme case in a way in which hardly anyone plays any game. Yet again, however, you don't even have to use the save anywhere feature in Half-Life 2, so if you want the challenge, you get it. Your second example is the same situation. Basically, what it boils down to is this: you don't like save anywhere because you feel it cheapens the difficulty of the game for those who play without utilizing save anywhere. You don't do it even if it's there, but you don't like the option being available to others who utilize it in a way in which almost no one utilizes it. I can see that. I definitely do agree with you on your compromise, though -- if they allowed quick save/save anywhere on the settings except hard (or brutal, whatever games call difficulties above hard) it'd be a nice compromise. And, I definitely agree there are a few games in which it feels more rewarding to have quick save only -- your example of Call of Duty was exactly what I had in mind, actually. I like earning those achievements, and I'd be a little miffed if others essentially cheated to get it, because that is one of the few games I would agree is definitely intended to be that difficult, because it's far more rewarding. There are plenty of games that have absolute crap save systems, though. My earlier example of Singularity is the best that comes to mind. It has a fine checkpoint system, but it's not exactly a game with levels (and not exactly an open world game, either). If I want to go back and replay a segment of the game, I have to start the game entirely over and work my way to that point. That's just pathetic. And there are plenty of games out there like this, which is infuriating. The reason I like save anywhere is mainly just to replay segments (or if I have to leave immediately and don't want to replay a segment during my playthrough), which I'd wager is probably what most people do. I personally don't see the point in doing what the examples you gave, and I wouldn't have any fun playing like that, personally. But your compromise would be a nice option to have -- it's just a shame developers don't do that. I think it has more to do with them not wanting to add the feature than it does designing a game for that difficulty, personally, because it's been this way ever since consoles became the lead development platform. Developers that used to be strictly PC developers changed their method entirely on the issue once they started focusing on consoles first. Good post Ayepecks. I just want to clarify something as most people either seem to misunderstand it or not grasp it. About the so-called challenge that I keep mentioning, I'm not specifically looking for a challenge per say and neither are most games in that sense. Because if I was simply looking for anything that could provide me with a challenge then I might as well try completing games blind-folded or try completing them with an arm tied to my back. That isn't what I'm looking for when starting up a game on Veteran difficulty ( or whatever the game equivalent is ). What I am looking for is all the things that are tied to the challenge at hand; the gratification it provides, the feeling you maybe did something a lot of people don't have the patience or the ability to take on and just the sheer excitement and sense of pride. It's like human emotions that come into play, it's the release of adrenalin in the body - It's a sort of high you are looking for. Yes, it sounds a bit extreme but it's true. The harder the game is, the more inaccessible the experience is to the 'common' man, the better the end-result is when it comes to making it a great experience. This is also taking the discussion a bit on a side-track but that is also why I believe, the good old gaming days are what people remember the most. The games back then could drive a person mad, they would challenge you beyond human possible at times because they didn't allow you to save, limited health points and limited lives ( sometimes ) but if and when you actually completed the game or even a section within the game, the gratification was fantastic, it was such a rush and that stuff stays with you. Like, I played a ton of games on my 360 and a lot of them were great, great games. You know which game I remember the most, the game that gets a smile on my face when it gets in my head? Call of Duty 2. I bought it second hand years after release and decided I wanted to go 1000/1000, which meant I had to play the game on veteran. The game wasn't that good looking, the experience had me all up in the red and it was all very basic. Despite all of that, the 'good' moments weren't just good, they were fantastic, they were awesome they were epic for lack of words to describe it - The adrenaline, the feeling of clinging on to dear life at every turn and the feeling of overcoming the challenge set by the developer gave me a gaming-high of godly proportions and stays with me even today. And thinking about it, it was all attributed to the checkpoint system because it fits perfectly with the game and the entire mantra of veteran mode - So of course I'll be speaking warmly for pro-checkpoint system. As I check my list of games that have provided a similar experience, they are all checkpoint based, it's a basic save system yet it's so amazingly powerful for the overall gaming experience. I'm fine with people getting the same experience for games with a regular system but I don't, the experience is dead because I get no personal reward, gratification or gaming-high completing a game that is made easier from the developer's side. Setting down my own challenges by either not using save, only using a pistol or doing whatever gives me nothing - It's like the taste of air, it's complete emptiness. When I complete a game like that my reaction is "meh ...". It all sounds very melodramatic but any real gamer can tell you about the gaming highs you chase, the adrenalin kicks and the sense of pride. Also another clarification, this isn't about every game should have a checkpoint system and as I already stated, the save system should be thought out by the developer and not a dice-roll decision as it seems with most developers, some games are suited for save whenever / wherever, like games for portable systems, RTS games, games meant for the younger crowd. I also wouldn't mind the system to be implemented as we just said to the game based on difficulty level but I much prefer the checkpoint system, especially in FPS games and I haven't enjoyed a Single-player FPS in years because of the many "save anywhere" games, I'm still struggling to get through HL2 E2. Of course there's bad examples of developers implementing poor checkpoint systems where the checkpoints you receive are placed very badly and perhaps too far apart, I'm not condoning that whatsoever, it needs to be done with a bit of thought and care - Then it's a brilliant system. But overall this is all a matter of taste and I just feel bitter because games that could have been brilliant are ruined because of the 'hive-mind' that is casual gamers but that's something I have to live with, unfortunately. So it looks like I might have to buy Call of Duty: Black Ops after all to get the type of single-player experience I want :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 I can see where Sethos is coming from, and one can't dispute his preference for gratification for completing a game. For him, it's a sense of accomplishment, a form of competition. All that together added with good game play, well thought out checkpoints and saves (or lack of them), decent graphics all add to his gaming experience. He has a direction of what gaming perfection suits him best. There is no doubt in my mind that each and every person here is an individual with their own tastes in gaming, their own preferences and their own personal outlook on what they feel is fun, exciting and accomplishing. Everyone should respect a differing opinion. Not every one likes the same games. Not every one likes the same difficulty. Not everyone is as good at gaming as others. For me, gaming is about enjoyment. It's about cherishing the little free time I have. Gaming is about game play and story. Gaming ends for me when it turns into a chore. A chore for me is trying to complete Modern Warfare 2 on Veteran for example. There are times where I probably attempted to complete a level no less than 50 times (and still didn't pass it). In order to pass the level, I resorted to lowering the difficulty and I finally passed it. That has happened too often for me because I am not a great gamer, just a good gamer. If not for the option to resort to a lower level of difficulty, I would not have enjoyed the game, and I would not have finished the game. More frequent checkpoints, or easier AI, no matter which way you look at it, changes the challenge and satisfaction in their minds. I might have been able to finish the game on Veteran had I been given the option of a save or a sooner checkpoint, had it been an option. Same goes for COD4, as I struggled the same way. I was able to complete most but not all of the game on Veteran. Some will have a sense of accomplishment by defeating the entire game on Veteran without using a checkpoint, using less check points, or using no saves. But the game, which is more difficult for me, will give me a great feeling of satisfaction (more so than even on a lower difficulty), had I had the option to get a couple more save points or check points. Those who pass it without the handicaps, will have the final and greater sense of accomplishment, and that is great. Giving you the option doesn't require you to enjoy the game any less. I remember when Forza 3 came out and people were up in arms about the lack of accomplishment they would feel because the game has rewind. To that, I said, don't use it. I used it in my career in Forza 3, and I am proud to say I did. I didn't do as good as those that didn't use it. I applaud them for their dedication to complete the game without using that handicap. I can't do it. Maybe I could do it if I had 24 * 7 time to practice and get better, but I don't. So why can't developers cater to both? Why can't they give the hardcore the challenge they want, and at the same time, give gamers that struggle an option to complete the game with a little bit of elbow grease and help. I guarantee I am just as excited as those people not using saves or checkpoints to complete a game on hard, when I would complete a game on hard with assistance. I also agree it's important for developers to implement proper save systems and checkpoints for certain games that realistically require it. I prefer options instead of mandating, but at the same time, I respect others who feel differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 skipped over most over your post sethos but picked up gratifcation epic. nothing is more epic than taking out 2 equal level players in a grade gear while wearing ng and d grade gear in l2 within 30 seconds of proting in. and i got mad props from it from my peers and when we bump into the net now and then i have become one of the greatest players of that era in that game to them. nothing beats world pvping in wow tbc era in greens and bluee against full parties as a supposedly gimpy class. absolutely nothing beat knifing an awper in the back or hell in the front in cs. or even killing an awper with a pistol. no one dictates difiuclty to me but myself and the player si fight against. what i expect from devs is balance first and fore most. and making a profitable gmae that i will enjoy. when they make a game gimpy in some way it's turn off to me. because i know that it will be an incovenience to play for 15 minutes if i have the time to do so, or it will gimp out my opponent in some way. i feel the same applies to sp games. like those have been hard since the early 90s anyway amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted August 7, 2010 Share Posted August 7, 2010 This thread has succumb to "check out the size of my e-peener"itis. The OP had a valid rant how about we get back to discussing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 completely agree, as others said i too think we should be able to save whenever, wherever. as it stands developers use save systems to aritificially extend games, when they should be focusing on making them better. the save systems in some titles, like Dear Rising, were just plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone64 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Lyons10 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I can see where Sethos is coming from, and one can't dispute his preference for gratification for completing a game. For him, it's a sense of accomplishment, a form of competition. All that together added with good game play, well thought out checkpoints and saves (or lack of them), decent graphics all add to his gaming experience. He has a direction of what gaming perfection suits him best. There is no doubt in my mind that each and every person here is an individual with their own tastes in gaming, their own preferences and their own personal outlook on what they feel is fun, exciting and accomplishing. Everyone should respect a differing opinion. Not every one likes the same games. Not every one likes the same difficulty. Not everyone is as good at gaming as others. For me, gaming is about enjoyment. It's about cherishing the little free time I have. Gaming is about game play and story. Gaming ends for me when it turns into a chore. A chore for me is trying to complete Modern Warfare 2 on Veteran for example. There are times where I probably attempted to complete a level no less than 50 times (and still didn't pass it). In order to pass the level, I resorted to lowering the difficulty and I finally passed it. That has happened too often for me because I am not a great gamer, just a good gamer. If not for the option to resort to a lower level of difficulty, I would not have enjoyed the game, and I would not have finished the game. More frequent checkpoints, or easier AI, no matter which way you look at it, changes the challenge and satisfaction in their minds. I might have been able to finish the game on Veteran had I been given the option of a save or a sooner checkpoint, had it been an option. Same goes for COD4, as I struggled the same way. I was able to complete most but not all of the game on Veteran. Some will have a sense of accomplishment by defeating the entire game on Veteran without using a checkpoint, using less check points, or using no saves. But the game, which is more difficult for me, will give me a great feeling of satisfaction (more so than even on a lower difficulty), had I had the option to get a couple more save points or check points. Those who pass it without the handicaps, will have the final and greater sense of accomplishment, and that is great. Giving you the option doesn't require you to enjoy the game any less. I remember when Forza 3 came out and people were up in arms about the lack of accomplishment they would feel because the game has rewind. To that, I said, don't use it. I used it in my career in Forza 3, and I am proud to say I did. I didn't do as good as those that didn't use it. I applaud them for their dedication to complete the game without using that handicap. I can't do it. Maybe I could do it if I had 24 * 7 time to practice and get better, but I don't. So why can't developers cater to both? Why can't they give the hardcore the challenge they want, and at the same time, give gamers that struggle an option to complete the game with a little bit of elbow grease and help. I guarantee I am just as excited as those people not using saves or checkpoints to complete a game on hard, when I would complete a game on hard with assistance. I also agree it's important for developers to implement proper save systems and checkpoints for certain games that realistically require it. I prefer options instead of mandating, but at the same time, I respect others who feel differently. GREAT post AWBrian. You put it very well. I am all for games catering to different types of players. I know I wouldn't finish a lot without that, and they could always have some of the achievements be only available for people playing the hardest difficulty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyJordan Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I am all for games catering to different types of players. I know I wouldn't finish a lot without that, and they could always have some of the achievements be only available for people playing the hardest difficulty... I reckon there should be a bigger incentive to play on a harder difficulty, besides achievements. Say, an extra gun or two in an FPS. Sounds unfair, but it would tempt more people to play the game the way it's meant to be played. Also, if you play an FPS game, most of the time, you need to play the campaign on the hardest difficulty, because multiplayer will be even harder, like in Modern Warfare 2, and Halo 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Not allowing you to save at any arbitrary point makes the game longer by forcing you to replay longer parts, making you oblivious to the fact that the game itself is only 20 minutes long. Same with difficulty levels. Free way to add value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo0o Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Also, I think that not allowing you to save anywhere and everywhere is to instill some form of challenge? Where's the challenge if you can save at every point during a hot streak and restart from there if you lose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 (snipped) Getting back on topic, I agree with Warwagon and Sethos. Games are too easy when they let you save at any state. It made Fallout 3 and Oblivion a breeze for me. That kind of saving should be limited to the easier difficulties. Here's a spot where I disagree. Simply because I don't feel like running all over a giant map for 20 minutes (literally, since you have to run everywhere in Fallout) just to find a city or place where I can save. Let me save, quit, then the next day load up where I finished up and move on. However, for most linear games, I absolutely agree with people who say use checkpoints and save spots. Most games use these around any real difficult areas anyway, ends of chapters, ends of missions, etc.; and if you can't make use of them before you have to quit, perhaps you should budget your time better. Of course there's bad examples of developers implementing poor checkpoint systems where the checkpoints you receive are placed very badly and perhaps too far apart, I'm not condoning that whatsoever, it needs to be done with a bit of thought and care - Then it's a brilliant system. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtremeG Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Never had a problem with the way games are saved until I played Ninja Gaiden on the old Xbox, I could finish a lot of games 100% without too much trouble but... damn... this was one game that I never even managed to pass the first level on normal mode, and when you'd die fighting the boss you are put back at square one having to do it all again, so I gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manish Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 A chore for me is trying to complete Modern Warfare 2 on Veteran for example. There are times where I probably attempted to complete a level no less than 50 times (and still didn't pass it). In order to pass the level, I resorted to lowering the difficulty and I finally passed it. ... I might have been able to finish the game on Veteran had I been given the option of a save or a sooner checkpoint, had it been an option. (Using COD/MW2 as an example...) But that's exactly why you don't "deserve" the Veteran title on that particular level. It's intended to be a challenge and have a certain level of difficulty. Like you said, the option is there; if you can't do that level as the developer intended, choose an easier difficulty setting. If you finished a mission on Veteran mode with 100 saves and I did it with 5 saves, there would be no sense of accomplishment. If you did the mission on Hard mode with 5 saves and I did it on Veteran with 5 saves, we would both feel accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 You just agreed with me which is good. It's great that developers give gamers choices, easier modes, more saves, easier ai or more check points. COD does it by offering more levels of difficulty. Some offer more saves or checkpoints. I don't deserve nothing. I was only hoping it would be added as an option and not impede on the uber hardcore I am better than you gamers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Veteran Posted August 8, 2010 Veteran Share Posted August 8, 2010 Off topic/ MW2 on veteran is easy :p I think games should adapt to what the player wants, ask him/her if he would like auto-saves, an option in the menu and checkpoints. That way everyone wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts