Savegames in console vs PC

Remove all ads!

I do not get it. Why still use waypoint savegames in 2007.

I am now playing Overlord and it uses waypoints. It has no ohter system, or they hid it well, like quicksave. I can change te savegame slot in the menu so that the game autosaves in different slots. Needless to say that de waypoints are behind the levelboss. Well, that is what you get whit a game made for pc and console. But wait a second, what about Oblivion, or Kotor.

So how do you save on consoles? Is it the dreaded waypoint system, or the keen quicksave?

 

I don't buy games that do not allow you to save when you want to. I do other things apart from gaming, and I want to be able to go back to them when I please, not when a game designer has decided.

An exception are those games (like the BG series) that do not allow to save in the middle of a cutscene or a battle, but that's not too bad.

 

I like both systems. Waypoint saves aren't that bad since they add a rather small degree of strategy to saving, as well as typically a nice heads-up for "you should save the game now" from the designers. It also makes for a good quitting point when you're playing a game that makes you lose track of time.

But sticking the waypoint *behind* the boss? That's idiotic. You put it in front so that you can save before *and* after because it's still accessible. And even if it isn't accessible because they teleport you away or something, unless it's teleporting you into a maze, you ought to be able to find your way to a different waypoint easily.

The only time I wouldn't play a game because it has waypoint saves is if it doesn't have a pause function. I'm perfectly happy pausing the game and then leaving the computer running for a few hours since I usually have it constantly running for other purposes, but if you can't even do that...ugh.

 

I haven't played a game with waypoint saving in years.

 

I can understand that 20 year old games couldn't let you save anywhere, as the technology wasn't as advanced, and being able to save the state of the entire world in something like, say, the first Might and Magic game would have been an impossible feat back then. I don't think any game post-2000 can come up with any excuse though, on the PC or console. It's boiled down to being a design decision, with the purpose being to make the game "more challenging". It seems designers forget that people can make the game as challenging as they want by not saving frequently. I remember Soldier of Fortune (an otherwise unremarkable FPS) let you set at the beginning how many times you wanted to be allowed to save in the middle of a mission, with a pretty good range of numbers from never to unlimited. Probably the best implementation of "waypoint vs anytime" saving I've seen.

 

Nice system. So designing a game whit active savegames and not with waypoint is a point of technology.

So, can we state that the waypoint system is cutting corners to keep the technology cheap?

Is it possible to savegame manually in the xbox version of Oblivion? And therefore waypoints as only system is not only on pc but also on console outdated and annoying?

 

Don't you think it has something to do with how you play the game? Some games are better with waypoint, some are not. Waypoint is a challenging mechanism, right there it just added some "replay-ability" thus extending a little longer the life of game.

 

Not if you must restart 35 times to get into the carrier in farcry. I forgot the hole in the side below the waterline but found it by accident. It took me 2 days. and every ******* time I had to walk the same path towards the carrier. It ruined farcry for me. Also Overlord was sometimes theethgrinding.

So waypoints? No, keep that crap on the console.

 

I'll second that, as I often need to leave/exit my game suddenly - besides that it's just plain annoying.