At some point while playing any video game, the game will need to be saved. The player has to exist, for a little while at least, outside of the game world. Beyond that, it would really suck to start a game over from the beginning every time the player's digital avatar met its pixelated demise. So, game developers have to implement some kind of system so that the player's progress can be saved.
Most games allow the player to save at any point, usually by simply hitting "F6" or the like. Thats fine. What is a problem is when the developers allow the player to save only at some specific point in the game, such as between "scenes" or at a save point indicated by some silly in-game item, such as a computer, or glowing blue ball. That is silly. Saving is not realistic. It never will be realistic. So, why put the save process into the diegesis? It doesn't belong, so don't pretend it does.
When the game can be saved at any point, the player can save just before the difficult battle occurs. So, when that part has to be repeated a few times, its no big deal, as the player doesn't have to waste time before trying the hard part again. However, when the game only allows you to save every now and again, the player often has to repeat the same minute long walking-towards-the-battle sequence, or the same conversation, or even a ten-minute long cutscene, that, while great the first time, starts to really annoy by the third time through.
What is really amazing about the whole thing is that almost every review for a game that only allows saving at specific moments complains about how the arbitrary save point system sucks, but developers don't seem to care. It's doubtful that changing the save system to be more forgiving would alter the sales of a game, so why not do so? Or, maybe give the player the choice at the beginning of the game? What a novel idea.
Technorati Tags: video games, saving, game development, computer, nintendo, ps2, ps3, xbox
Most games allow the player to save at any point, usually by simply hitting "F6" or the like. Thats fine. What is a problem is when the developers allow the player to save only at some specific point in the game, such as between "scenes" or at a save point indicated by some silly in-game item, such as a computer, or glowing blue ball. That is silly. Saving is not realistic. It never will be realistic. So, why put the save process into the diegesis? It doesn't belong, so don't pretend it does.
When the game can be saved at any point, the player can save just before the difficult battle occurs. So, when that part has to be repeated a few times, its no big deal, as the player doesn't have to waste time before trying the hard part again. However, when the game only allows you to save every now and again, the player often has to repeat the same minute long walking-towards-the-battle sequence, or the same conversation, or even a ten-minute long cutscene, that, while great the first time, starts to really annoy by the third time through.
What is really amazing about the whole thing is that almost every review for a game that only allows saving at specific moments complains about how the arbitrary save point system sucks, but developers don't seem to care. It's doubtful that changing the save system to be more forgiving would alter the sales of a game, so why not do so? Or, maybe give the player the choice at the beginning of the game? What a novel idea.
Technorati Tags: video games, saving, game development, computer, nintendo, ps2, ps3, xbox
1 comment:
Interesting-- good thinking on something I hadn't really considered.
As for why they shouldn't allow saves at any point... I have two theories.
a) If you have to repeat parts of the game, it'll take longer to finish, masking the lack of game content. (Call this my cynical theory.)
b) If you have to keep going until you hit the save point, the game can encourage focus and anticipation-- a version of "just five minutes more", which usually gets tied up with pleasure in memory.
Post a Comment