There is a difference between saving after a few hours of gameplay and saving every 3 minutes. That's the real difference, the idea being that you won't lose any progress. Personally if I am spamming my save key, I will just use a cheat. But I dunno if its about division to feel superior as its so much about a "quality save" as opposed to a "random save" for like of better terms. One implies you put in a lot of time and the other not so much. Course save spamming does give you a bit of freedom to play with abandon so to each their own I guess.marurder said:
The Master
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
If only there were some kind of feature that's becoming more and more popular that only allows people to only have one save and stick with it. That would make the game really hard to overcome. Like it's made of iron or something.
But seriously? I don't really have a problem with frequent saving, as long as developers don't get their shit together and manage to actually release a bug free game. You know, so when you loose, it's because you didn't play well, not because the game teleported a thousand enemies behind your lines.
I am looking at you, xcom!
But seriously? I don't really have a problem with frequent saving, as long as developers don't get their shit together and manage to actually release a bug free game. You know, so when you loose, it's because you didn't play well, not because the game teleported a thousand enemies behind your lines.
I am looking at you, xcom!
I am a PC gamer and i never quicksave. But then again im weird.
Also you can quicksave as much as you want, when the game is actually complex and isnt just some FPS where hit chances are random, it wont help you one bit. Try savescumming on Empire Earth and you will fail.
Also you can quicksave as much as you want, when the game is actually complex and isnt just some FPS where hit chances are random, it wont help you one bit. Try savescumming on Empire Earth and you will fail.
Saving and save scumming are different things. Saving to save a game is one thing. Reloading the game 100 times to get that 1% hit chance and doing that for every move you take is savescumming. Thats why games introduce constant salt to thier RNG, so reloading would give exactly same results unless you change tactics.marurder said:
I lol'd.The Rogue Wolf said:
OT: Despite the fact that I've seen the light of PC gaming, my abysmal income still prompts me to play on consoles. That said, I'm always happy when console games make use of quick save functions. Mass Effect 3 and, more recently, GTAV come to mind.
So, after reading this, I played Thief 2, forcing myself to use 2-3 saves per level, only to have Garret glitch into a box in the second level and be unable to get out.
Nice Oblivion reference there, because Oblivion (and to a lesser extent Skyrim) are some of the worst perpetrators of spam saving. Quicksave-pickpocket-fail-quickload-repeat.42 said:
I didn't get it at first, because even though I'm a PC gamer, I don't trust quick saves. What if you accidentally end up having all of you quick save slots filled with saves in unwinnable situations. That's why it's manual saves all the way for me.
People talk about QS like its a bad thing...
There are some games that are designed for quick saving, like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas. I dislike the idea that just losing a day's worth of progress because of a dodgy autosave system is the correct way to play a game. The system was put there for a reason.
Quicksaving also makes games more fun. It's nice to be able to QS before attacking an enemy or objective and experiment with all the different strategies (especially the very, very stupid ones), weapons and mechanics in your arsenal. I can't remeber how many times I QS'd in Fallout just to brutalise a particularly annoying character. With a mininuke. From 6 inches away.
Besides, the comic doesn't make much sense. I can't think of any games that are legitimately extremely challenging in their vanilla state that have a QS button (apart from the Witcher 2). Even then, QS doesn't actually take away the need to have skill. You still need to be able to kill the enemy, you just get more than one shot at it. Checkpointing and hardsaving have the same effect. The QS function doesn't make PC gamers complaining about easy games ironic. A lot of the hardest games around don't have a QS key, or have a harder difficulty that unbinds those keys. The two things are barely related.
There are some games that are designed for quick saving, like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas. I dislike the idea that just losing a day's worth of progress because of a dodgy autosave system is the correct way to play a game. The system was put there for a reason.
Quicksaving also makes games more fun. It's nice to be able to QS before attacking an enemy or objective and experiment with all the different strategies (especially the very, very stupid ones), weapons and mechanics in your arsenal. I can't remeber how many times I QS'd in Fallout just to brutalise a particularly annoying character. With a mininuke. From 6 inches away.
Besides, the comic doesn't make much sense. I can't think of any games that are legitimately extremely challenging in their vanilla state that have a QS button (apart from the Witcher 2). Even then, QS doesn't actually take away the need to have skill. You still need to be able to kill the enemy, you just get more than one shot at it. Checkpointing and hardsaving have the same effect. The QS function doesn't make PC gamers complaining about easy games ironic. A lot of the hardest games around don't have a QS key, or have a harder difficulty that unbinds those keys. The two things are barely related.
I believe this bias towards one console / system over another is damaging the video game community / industry as a whole. Regardless if you are a pc gamer or console gamer. This is just an unhealthy attitude that is spreading like a CANCER. All it does is spread a type of elitism that makes gamers look immature and childish ( a comparison news stations use to attack our medium I might add ). Could we please stop this so that we could all be seen as ADULT enough to enjoy our medium without degrading to the socially stances of a five year old ?? Please.
Being able to save whenever you want is significantly better than a checkpoint system. I don't see how this has anything to do with platform loyalties.
I haven't the words to properly describe how much ^THIS^ (or <THAT< ... which ever direction leads back to the comic)
I generally try not to scum it up in Tactical games, but occasionally I'll get that ugly ugly streak and have to dip into this type of behavior (lookin at you XCOM)
90% chance to hit : Miss
90% chance to hit : Miss
90% chance to hit : Miss
Enemies turn
10% Chance to hit : Crit, dead, facepalm, reload save
I generally try not to scum it up in Tactical games, but occasionally I'll get that ugly ugly streak and have to dip into this type of behavior (lookin at you XCOM)
90% chance to hit : Miss
90% chance to hit : Miss
90% chance to hit : Miss
Enemies turn
10% Chance to hit : Crit, dead, facepalm, reload save
I hate to break it to you, but Persona 3 portable was the easy version. When you warp out using the floor ducts, you can go back to that floor, you didn't have to use a midboss teleport (only if you want to revisit that set of floors). Yeah, P4 had pretty much ten floors before a save butterfly, but you could always port out and get your fox to heal your SP.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
I remember Baldurs gate 1 would load, and sometimes load up random enemies. That would always freak me out, when I would save, then get hurt, load, and suddenly there were like ten kobolds raining fire arrows on my party. Bad times...
