What happened to quick save?

Click here for the awesome blog link :)

Below is the text. So what do you guys think?

I am not sure how and when this started, but it is getting really annoying. I understand that for some people this is not a problem, but some of us care about this. It feels like my experience is more watered down without options that were available to games from 8 years ago. There is no reason why the developers are not giving players the option to quick save in 2012!

I’ve talked about this issue in the past on the forums and the responses ranged from people who absolutely wanted it, and those who said quick save removed the challenge from the game.

I understand that, however, for those who want a challenge, they can always just not save. Gamers like me would like to have the option but just can’t seem to convince people that this is an important part of their experience!

I can’t remember the number of times I played a certain section in Crysis or in Max Payne, all because I could save where I wanted to.

I remember when Crysis 2 and Max Payne 3 were first announced. I had a bad feeling that they will be a console ports.

With Crysis 2, my suspicion was well founded. At launch, the game had no DX11 support, had hardly any graphics settings except pre-set options, and it featured the irritating checkpoint feature. If that wasn’t bad enough, you had to quit the current game to be able load a checkpoint. The game itself isn’t bad at all, but the gameplay is built around the console, and without the lack of any customization, its just a big disappointment compared to the 5 year old Crysis.

Now, the release date for Max Payne 3 has been announced and PC Gamer did a preview very recently.

This is disappointing to me. The first two games let you save wherever you wanted to save, and also had a ton of graphics settings options. It seems as if Max Payne 3 is heading down the Crysis 2 path.

I am not sure what I intend to accomplish with this post. Perhaps someone in the games industry will read this and understand that not everyone will like the kind of restrictions that seem acceptable on consoles.

For example, the developers of Deus Ex Human Revolution believed that highlighting is a core part of the experience, yet they gave us the option to turn it off. I think that is commendable.

Allowing players to choose their experience is the best part of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

If the fine folks at PC Gamer can convince developers in the future that curbing their enthusiasm to provide an experience is a good thing, everyone is going to be happy for it.

40 Comments
43 Comments
Posted by PatchRowcester

Click here for the awesome blog link :)

Below is the text. So what do you guys think?

I am not sure how and when this started, but it is getting really annoying. I understand that for some people this is not a problem, but some of us care about this. It feels like my experience is more watered down without options that were available to games from 8 years ago. There is no reason why the developers are not giving players the option to quick save in 2012!

I’ve talked about this issue in the past on the forums and the responses ranged from people who absolutely wanted it, and those who said quick save removed the challenge from the game.

I understand that, however, for those who want a challenge, they can always just not save. Gamers like me would like to have the option but just can’t seem to convince people that this is an important part of their experience!

I can’t remember the number of times I played a certain section in Crysis or in Max Payne, all because I could save where I wanted to.

I remember when Crysis 2 and Max Payne 3 were first announced. I had a bad feeling that they will be a console ports.

With Crysis 2, my suspicion was well founded. At launch, the game had no DX11 support, had hardly any graphics settings except pre-set options, and it featured the irritating checkpoint feature. If that wasn’t bad enough, you had to quit the current game to be able load a checkpoint. The game itself isn’t bad at all, but the gameplay is built around the console, and without the lack of any customization, its just a big disappointment compared to the 5 year old Crysis.

Now, the release date for Max Payne 3 has been announced and PC Gamer did a preview very recently.

This is disappointing to me. The first two games let you save wherever you wanted to save, and also had a ton of graphics settings options. It seems as if Max Payne 3 is heading down the Crysis 2 path.

I am not sure what I intend to accomplish with this post. Perhaps someone in the games industry will read this and understand that not everyone will like the kind of restrictions that seem acceptable on consoles.

For example, the developers of Deus Ex Human Revolution believed that highlighting is a core part of the experience, yet they gave us the option to turn it off. I think that is commendable.

Allowing players to choose their experience is the best part of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

If the fine folks at PC Gamer can convince developers in the future that curbing their enthusiasm to provide an experience is a good thing, everyone is going to be happy for it.

Posted by ZeForgotten

Nothing? The games that need it seem to have it. At least the games I play that came out in 2011 and 2012(and before that) seem to quick save every time I hit F5. 

Posted by Marz

I find it odd when an RPG doesn't have a quicksave option... but for other games i don't mind so much.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@ZeForgotten said:

Nothing? The games that need it seem to have it. At least the games I play that came out in 2011 and 2012(and before that) seem to quick save every time I hit F5.

Like I said, not everyone cares about this "issue". Could you tell me which games you were referring to in particular?

Some of us do, but it seems like we are a non-vocal minority. Just my opinion though.

Posted by MooseyMcMan

That's odd. Even on the Xbox Max Payne 1 let you save anywhere. Not sure about 2. Still haven't played that (I should do that before 3 comes out).

Moderator
Posted by PatchRowcester

@Marz said:

I find it odd when an RPG doesn't have a quicksave option... but for other games i don't mind so much.

Yep. I see your point of view and I would agree, but it just REALLY irritates me when they don't put in the effort to let players make their own decisions.

I am just trying to get that point across.

In this instance, Rockstar are missing out on a day one purchase from me because now I am very suspicious about the game being a total console port. I was right about Crysis 2, and boy am I glad I didn't buy it at launch.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@MooseyMcMan said:

That's odd. Even on the Xbox Max Payne 1 let you save anywhere. Not sure about 2. Still haven't played that (I should do that before 3 comes out).

Max Payne 2 lets you save anywhere.

Posted by benjaebe

If the checkpointing system is fine then I don't really care if there's quicksaving.

Posted by MysteriousBob

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@benjaebe said:

If the checkpointing system is fine then I don't really care if there's quicksaving.

This is going into nitpicking area for sure.

There is no checkpoint system that is "fine" for everyone. Remember Wolfenstein? That game irritated the hell out of me, especially during the boss battle. I remember Logan Decker of PC Gamer complaining about it, yet the previous Wolfenstein game let you save anywhere you wanted to.

I am only point is, why not give players the choice. That's really it.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@MysteriousBob said:

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

Haha. Quick save is equal to cheating? Well, then why not let the "cheaters" cheat? :)

Posted by ZeForgotten
@PatchRowcester said:

@ZeForgotten said:

Nothing? The games that need it seem to have it. At least the games I play that came out in 2011 and 2012(and before that) seem to quick save every time I hit F5.

Like I said, not everyone cares about this "issue". Could you tell me which games you were referring to in particular?

Some of us do, but it seems like we are a non-vocal minority. Just my opinion though.

Some of the games I remember off the top of my head are The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Deus Ex: Human Revolution(as mentioned) , Shogun 2: Total War. Those are the games I've been playing for the past months, all have quick saves.  
What I find weird is where the fuck did the Quick Load button go for The Witcher 2? 
Edited by LaserLambert

You should be thankful you get the ability to Quick Save when you get it, and not pissed off when you don't get it.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@LaserLambert said:

You should be thankful you get the ability to Quick Save when you get it, and not pissed off when you don't get it.

I am not pisses off. I am sorry if the tone of my message conveyed that. I am just irritated with all these console ports. I am not saying every multi platform game is bad. There are amazing games out there that are developed with a console focus.

Its just that when PC versions do not receive the kind of attention they should, I feel like someone should raise the point.

I have enough perspective to understand that this is nitpicking. :)

Posted by dudeglove

But savescumming is fun!

Posted by PatchRowcester

@dudeglove said:

But savescumming is fun!

Are you sure? :)

Posted by johnwaynegacy

I think quick-save was simply replaced by autosave and save (or check) points in most of the games. I don't miss it that much.

Posted by deathstriker666

No, what the question should be is why do developers still shit out crappy PC ports in 2012? Name me a PC exclusive released this year that doesn't have a quicksave option. I can't think of any

Posted by UlquioKani

You seem anti-console. Anyway, I agree that developers should be able to give you simple settings options for graphics and stuff. When I was playing Halo: Reach, I really wanted to turn the volume of the music and the sound down and pipe in my own music through the Xbox but it wouldn't let me. That said, because I couldn't turn the sound down, I listen to the music and loved it. I ended up buying the soundtrack so I can see a reason for limiting certain options for the "experience".

Posted by Masha2932

I really hope console games embrace quick save in the next generation. Prince of persia(08) allowed you to save anywhere but I can't think of many console games that do it.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@UlquioKani said:

You seem anti-console. Anyway, I agree that developers should be able to give you simple settings options for graphics and stuff. When I was playing Halo: Reach, I really wanted to turn the volume of the music and the sound down and pipe in my own music through the Xbox but it wouldn't let me. That said, because I couldn't turn the sound down, I listen to the music and loved it. I ended up buying the soundtrack so I can see a reason for limiting certain options for the "experience".

Absolutely not anti-console. I play frequently on the PS3, and I like it quite a bit, however, PC is my main gaming platform.

I understand that you enjoyed the experience of Halo Reach, but remember, not everyone may have like it, and would have wanted the option to turn it down. Its the fact that software companies want to control every aspect of the user experience in games is what bothers me.

I see a lot of benefits to this. By limiting the user experience, the potential for failure of a system is greatly reduced. I encounter this every day at work (I work in a software firm). Giving users too many options is not a good thing because testing for those options is going to be a nightmare.

That being said, I fail to see the point of limiting user's ability to save the game.

Posted by believer258

@MysteriousBob said:

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

How do you figure? If you've already gotten past, say, a room full of enemies, and you perform a quicksave to ensure that you don't have to do it again if you die in the next room, how is it cheating? You're obviously capable of overcoming the challenge within the game's rules, it's just a matter of not wanting to redo what you just did if the next challenge bests you and no checkpoint was made between them.

On topic, I do wish that more games included this feature. As a console player, I almost always have to rely on sometimes-shoddy checkpoint systems. Far Cry 2 didn't even include that - if you wanted to save, you had to take the trouble to find a damn safehouse. I'd also like to see a button dedicated to quicksaving in most games, but that isn't going to happen. It would be especially handy in Skyrim, where I have to go all the way into a menu to save.

Online
Posted by PatchRowcester

@believer258 said:

@MysteriousBob said:

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

How do you figure? If you've already gotten past, say, a room full of enemies, and you perform a quicksave to ensure that you don't have to do it again if you die in the next room, how is it cheating? You're obviously capable of overcoming the challenge within the game's rules, it's just a matter of not wanting to redo what you just did if the next challenge bests you and no checkpoint was made between them.

On topic, I do wish that more games included this feature. As a console player, I almost always have to rely on sometimes-shoddy checkpoint systems. Far Cry 2 didn't even include that - if you wanted to save, you had to take the trouble to find a damn safehouse. I'd also like to see a button dedicated to quicksaving in most games, but that isn't going to happen. It would be especially handy in Skyrim, where I have to go all the way into a menu to save.

I have a slightly different question.

Lets say I only cleared half the enemies in the room, and I wanted to save it at that point. Why shouldn't I be able to save? Just wondering what your opinion on this is.

A lot of people feel that is cheating. Personally, I don't care.

In my world, you should be able to play the game the way you want to. If that means saving every 2 seconds, so be it. (Also in my world, I would eradicate world hunger. Just saying :) )

Like I said, those who do not want to save, don't have to. This way, everyone wins, right?

Posted by SomeDeliCook

If theres one thing Max Payne needed, it was checkpoints. It was so disheartening to be so into the game that you get near the end of a level, die from either a mistake or being too ballsy, then have to restart the entire level.

This is really the opposite of what the thread is about, since the game forced you to quicksave, but still. It'd be nice if games had both checkpoints going on and quicksaves whenever you want them.

Posted by MikkaQ

If graphics settings and quick save are the reason you play PC games, you have deeper issues that need to be resolved.

Edited by believer258

@PatchRowcester said:

@believer258 said:

@MysteriousBob said:

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

How do you figure? If you've already gotten past, say, a room full of enemies, and you perform a quicksave to ensure that you don't have to do it again if you die in the next room, how is it cheating? You're obviously capable of overcoming the challenge within the game's rules, it's just a matter of not wanting to redo what you just did if the next challenge bests you and no checkpoint was made between them.

On topic, I do wish that more games included this feature. As a console player, I almost always have to rely on sometimes-shoddy checkpoint systems. Far Cry 2 didn't even include that - if you wanted to save, you had to take the trouble to find a damn safehouse. I'd also like to see a button dedicated to quicksaving in most games, but that isn't going to happen. It would be especially handy in Skyrim, where I have to go all the way into a menu to save.

I have a slightly different question.

Lets say I only cleared half the enemies in the room, and I wanted to save it at that point. Why shouldn't I be able to save? Just wondering what your opinion on this is.

A lot of people feel that is cheating. Personally, I don't care.

In my world, you should be able to play the game the way you want to. If that means saving every 2 seconds, so be it. (Also in my world, I would eradicate world hunger. Just saying :) )

Like I said, those who do not want to save, don't have to. This way, everyone wins, right?

You're right in one sense, but remember that developers have to have something to depend on. Even in the most open of games, there are rules there that limit your freedoms. I think that taking out quicksaves and putting in checkpoints is part of the developer's attempts at making you play the game the intended way. That sounds limiting, and indeed it is, but it's all meant to make the end product a more enjoyable and balanced experience.

As for killing half the enemies, saving, and then killing the other half, that's still not cheating. You've already performed the task. Besides, that's often a bad idea, especially in games that still use health bars. If you're especially unlucky, it can lock you into a tactic that wasn't going to work and never would, possibly forcing you to restart the game. This is something else that checkpoints solve.

@MikkaQ said:

If graphics settings and quick save are the reason you play PC games, you have deeper issues that need to be resolved.

I would argue differently. If all one cares about is graphics, then yes that is an issue. That's not what makes a game great. However, some people might prefer to take a performance hit in order to see everything at the highest settings, while others (like me) will knock the settings down if it means they can lock it at 60 FPS. In any case, seeing a developer deliver a game where all you can change is the resolution is not a promising sign. It's an easy way to tell that the developers probably cut corners elsewhere.

Online
Posted by mandude

Ah, man. This one pisses me off. It's such an easy feature to add. They already have it in the game, all they have to do is make it trigger when you hit a key.
 
That said I can't name a game I've played recently that didn't have it. I bought Crysis 2 pretty close to launch and I could have sworn it had it...

Posted by mordukai

@Masha2932 said:

I really hope console games embrace quick save in the next generation. Prince of persia(08) allowed you to save anywhere but I can't think of many console games that do it.

No not many. Off the top of my head I can think of Bioshock, Mass Effect, the elder scrolls series.

Posted by Hector

I thought it was replaced my autosave. I find that more convenient.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@MikkaQ said:

If graphics settings and quick save are the reason you play PC games, you have deeper issues that need to be resolved.

Wow man, just because I happen to talk about some of the things that bothered, you just concluded that those are absolutely the only reasons I play PC games?

I think that is a little too narrow minded.

Posted by dudeglove

@PatchRowcester said:

@dudeglove said:

But savescumming is fun!

Are you sure? :)

Ironically, spamming quicksave directly affected the difficulty of Max Payne 2 (not sure about 1). If enemies kept on giving you grief, the game would notably alter the enemies' AI and how effective your painkillers are. Not on hard boiled difficulty, though, where you're only given 3 saves per level (christ that mansion is a fucking nightmare). Kind of like Hitman: Blood Money.

Posted by InternetCrab

RPG's just need a quicksave option. But i can play them anyway, but quicksaves are just really good to have in RPG's. In other games, it doesn't really matter.

Edited by Sooty

Being able to quick save or save anywhere is very useful. I will purposely not play a game if I think I'll have to leave before I hit a checkpoint. (e.g. have to go out) It's annoying.
 
Though I haven't really noticed a lack of quick save on PC, but I do think games need to offer it more than rely on checkpoints. (most console games do this)

Posted by Red

Quick saves are where I want them in mah PC games. Console games do need a quick save button, but considering how bloated most game controls are, I can see there not being room for it.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@SomeDeliCook said:

If theres one thing Max Payne needed, it was checkpoints. It was so disheartening to be so into the game that you get near the end of a level, die from either a mistake or being too ballsy, then have to restart the entire level.

This is really the opposite of what the thread is about, since the game forced you to quicksave, but still. It'd be nice if games had both checkpoints going on and quicksaves whenever you want them.

The original Crysis did. That's one of the reasons it was a special game. It really let you play the way you wanted to play. It gave you the option to let the game save for you, and you could also save wherever you wanted.

I cannot imagine why other FPS games won't let you do this.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@believer258 said:

@PatchRowcester said:

@believer258 said:

@MysteriousBob said:

Nowhere? I haven't noticed them missing.

Besides, they border on cheating. If they are gone, good riddance.

How do you figure? If you've already gotten past, say, a room full of enemies, and you perform a quicksave to ensure that you don't have to do it again if you die in the next room, how is it cheating? You're obviously capable of overcoming the challenge within the game's rules, it's just a matter of not wanting to redo what you just did if the next challenge bests you and no checkpoint was made between them.

On topic, I do wish that more games included this feature. As a console player, I almost always have to rely on sometimes-shoddy checkpoint systems. Far Cry 2 didn't even include that - if you wanted to save, you had to take the trouble to find a damn safehouse. I'd also like to see a button dedicated to quicksaving in most games, but that isn't going to happen. It would be especially handy in Skyrim, where I have to go all the way into a menu to save.

I have a slightly different question.

Lets say I only cleared half the enemies in the room, and I wanted to save it at that point. Why shouldn't I be able to save? Just wondering what your opinion on this is.

A lot of people feel that is cheating. Personally, I don't care.

In my world, you should be able to play the game the way you want to. If that means saving every 2 seconds, so be it. (Also in my world, I would eradicate world hunger. Just saying :) )

Like I said, those who do not want to save, don't have to. This way, everyone wins, right?

You're right in one sense, but remember that developers have to have something to depend on. Even in the most open of games, there are rules there that limit your freedoms. I think that taking out quicksaves and putting in checkpoints is part of the developer's attempts at making you play the game the intended way. That sounds limiting, and indeed it is, but it's all meant to make the end product a more enjoyable and balanced experience.

As for killing half the enemies, saving, and then killing the other half, that's still not cheating. You've already performed the task. Besides, that's often a bad idea, especially in games that still use health bars. If you're especially unlucky, it can lock you into a tactic that wasn't going to work and never would, possibly forcing you to restart the game. This is something else that checkpoints solve.

@MikkaQ said:

If graphics settings and quick save are the reason you play PC games, you have deeper issues that need to be resolved.

I would argue differently. If all one cares about is graphics, then yes that is an issue. That's not what makes a game great. However, some people might prefer to take a performance hit in order to see everything at the highest settings, while others (like me) will knock the settings down if it means they can lock it at 60 FPS. In any case, seeing a developer deliver a game where all you can change is the resolution is not a promising sign. It's an easy way to tell that the developers probably cut corners elsewhere.

I completely agree with what you said. There have to be rules to limit the freedom even in very open games. That's understandable because if not, the game could be a mess.

And when you say, not giving players the option to save where they want to is the developers way of making you play the game the way they want you to, I see your point. Some games lend themselves very well to this formula. The new Call of Duty games for example. They are super linear, there is no freedom at all, so its alright.

Take Crysis 2 for example. The game was a choreographed sandbox as they called it. That could have used a quick save option. It didn't. What's more, you have to quit the current games, and go into the game's main menu to load a previous game.

That's terrible! Why not just let the players choose where they want to save, and give them checkpoints like the original Crysis did?

Do you see my point? Building games around the console experience is limiting the experience on PC. I also understand this is nitpicking, but when I am paying my hard earned money, I think I am entitled to an opinion.

Posted by StrainedEyes

Mass Effect 3 for the 360 lets you quick-save using Kinect.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@StrainedEyes said:

Mass Effect 3 for the 360 lets you quick-save using Kinect.

All the previous Mass Effect games let you quick save, except when in combat, which was alright. That's really not a big deal. It got a little bit irritating during the boss battles, but its cool.

Posted by StrainedEyes

@PatchRowcester said:

@StrainedEyes said:

Mass Effect 3 for the 360 lets you quick-save using Kinect.

All the previous Mass Effect games let you quick save, except when in combat, which was alright. That's really not a big deal. It got a little bit irritating during the boss battles, but its cool.

Yup, but since one of the issues with Quick Save on consoles is the lack of buttons, I think them using Kinect for ME3 is a smart solution. I'd happily say "Quick Save" while playing Skyrim to have that functionality.

Posted by Vodun

Quick Saves are nice, but I can live without them if I have to...but not letting me save anywhere I want to will make me want to strangle the developers. If I need/want to stop playing I need to fricken save!

Edited by Moncole

I love quick saves. I am one of those people who saves every 5 minutes.

I hate when games dont have quick saves, than I cant save if I have to go somewhere.

Posted by PatchRowcester

@Vodun said:

Quick Saves are nice, but I can live without them if I have to...but not letting me save anywhere I want to will make me want to strangle the developers. If I need/want to stop playing I need to fricken save!

I guess the point of my rant is - Let me save wherever I want!

Quick save is not the only way. I am definitely open to more creative solutions.