Back in the days of gaming glory, the 8 and 16-bit eras, we gamers didn’t have a whole lot of options when it came to saving games. Games were systematic and based on rote memorization, muscle memory, trial-and-error and the like.
Nowadays, the game saves for you every 10 seconds and even recharges your health and shines your shoes while you wait. Well, not really, but kind of.
That’s why Gamasutra recently posted an article about Save Systems, raising some interesting questions about how they affect gameplay.
The article discusses recent notable save systems, such as the one on Dead Rising, which forced you to play the game the way the developers desired by giving you only one save slot and relying on save points but no character traits. Some hated it, some loved it.
Personally, I don’t see the need for a great sandbox game if you can’t even save what you’ve done, but I understand why a developer would want saves to matter in a game that was based on survival-horror.
Another notable game is Bioshock, whose life chambers made the game almost stupidly easy, taking the tension out of certain moments if you knew one was around the corner.
Anywho, the article is pretty interesting, and discusses the ways that saves affect the way you play a game. So what do you guys think? Do easy save systems take something away from gaming these days? Personally, I haven’t played a game as challenging as say, Contra, since the days of yore on the Nintendo. Thoughts?