Kthanid wrote:
I know there's a contingent of anti-quicksave people out there (mostly because they feel it detracts from the difficulty of a game, as far as I can tell) and my response to them is always the same: Just because a quicksave (or the ability to save at any time) exists in a game does not mean that you are required to use it. People should feel free to play a game like that in any way they like. Want to save only at the start of each level? Okay, you can save there. Want to save only at healing stones? Same answer.
This sounds all very democratic and reasonable - but is not alway true. Some games are
designed around the idea of being able to save only in certain places. Difficulty, loot distribution, monster placement and battle flow can be all affected by this. Also, we`re only humans - if there is a save feature then most people will just use it instead of playing the game as it was intended to be played.
I`m saying this as a former F5 addict - for years sniggered when some patient Japanese dev tried to explain reasons for this and considered a Suspend Save a ludicrous option. Also took me a loooong time to get used to this when encountering such system in games. But I did finally see the light - think Izuna on DS was responsible - and have seen the benefits, some of which Jack Dandy mentions. I stopped rushing through games, instead just going in slower pace with much more planning and understanding of a particular title`s mechanics. Let`s be honest, we mostly quickload because we didn`t pay attention to this or that - resulting in death. But what good is a "death" when you can revert in an instant? Might as well get rid of "dying" whatsoever...
Oh well, it works in some games, it doesn`t in others. Can`t imagine playing Baldur`s Gate without quick save for example. Suppose if Grimrock already has a save anywhere system then it should also have a Quicksave feature.