In my understanding, PC gamers are often pretty miffed when a game doesn't have a quicksave/quickload function. It's often seen as an example of "consolization" of certain games (Gamepads just don't have enough buttons for that kind of functionality). There are times as well when a game has felt inconsiderate about the time I spend playing it, deciding that death means playing an entire chapter again to progress with it. It's often compounded if the death felt like it was unearned; owing to buggy gameplay or a failure to understand what I was supposed to be doing at the time.

That said, there are games out there that neglect to include a quicksave function but manage to balance the mechanics of death well, making it feel like dying meant a loss in more ways than simple game progression. Bioshock Infinite, in my opinion, had good enough pacing, solid combat and a good enough respawn system that meant that the absence of a save feature wasn't missed one bit. Death always felt like a result of bad gameplay on my part, I could jump right back into the action and there was a financial loss. Other notable examples were Dead Space 1&2 and The Walking Dead.

That said, with lots of games I'm a pretty compulsive quicksaver. Games like Dishonored and Deus Ex-HR had me mashing F5 about as frequently as the "W" key. Largely because the progression system and arbitrary moral choice systems lend themselves to a specific kind of gameplay; To get the "good" ending and to optimise your leveling you had to be perfectly stealthy and non-lethal, and that meant being discovered and having to kill enemies meant losing out on progession or outcome, forcing you to quickload or missing out. I wish they had similar XP bonuses for killing as they did for being stealthy and nonviolent, awarding XP for swift, precise kills in quick sucession for the same amount as getting through a chapter undetected.

I often replay a game with the intention of not using quicksave, making a game I know well more exciting by having to weigh up risks and deal with consequences. But being the compulsive type that I am I find myself quicksaving anyway, I've even hit F5 during sessions in DayZ if I was going into a significant PvP area!

It was nice to see that among the gameplay options for the new Theif game (although I haven't played it) that there was a chance to disable quicksave altogether, an excellent additon to a stealth game and something I'd like to see included in general.

How about you? Do you use quicksave? Do you think it's a crutch or a worthwhile feature for a game?

I am often (quick) save scum, especially with random seed. Also, I do not hesitate to abuse game mechanics - cheese - if I want to get certain results. Its single player and AI probably does not mind and its part of fun figuring it out. Spoiled few games with cheese like that, but same can happen with experience or skill. There are times for "ironman" but it usually requires too much investment for too little reward, changing dynamics of game-play by concentrating on not making mistakes.

Its interesting element to work with "point of continuum" :) and some developers use it well.

There is always multiplayer without save and challenge or personal discipline. All in all, customization FTW!

Generally there are games where quicksave, or just a save function in general would not just simply break the game, but make it obsolete and a waste of time. What would be the point of playing - say - FTL or Spelunky if you could just savescum? Might as well not play it then and watch a Let's Play. That said, it's cool if you want to give people an option to break their game, but I don't see why you'd use that option. Those tight, focused games are designed with the idea of miserable failure in mind. That's what they're for. Saving just robs you of the experience.

Other games would just plain drive me crazy without an option to save. I don't think I'd be able to play - say - Mount and Blade, or Skyrim without excessive use of the quicksave function. Sprawling, extensive games like that just tend to fuck you over for no reason now and then. It's not worth losing hours upon hours because of the game being a dick.

Mazille wrote:Generally there are games where quicksave, or just a save function in general would not just simply break the game, but make it obsolete and a waste of time. What would be the point of playing - say - FTL or Spelunky if you could just savescum? Might as well not play it then and watch a Let's Play. That said, it's cool if you want to give people an option to break their game, but I don't see why you'd use that option. Those tight, focused games are designed with the idea of miserable failure in mind. That's what they're for. Saving just robs you of the experience.

Other games would just plain drive me crazy without an option to save. I don't think I'd be able to play - say - Mount and Blade, or Skyrim without excessive use of the quicksave function. Sprawling, extensive games like that just tend to fuck you over for no reason now and then. It's not worth losing hours upon hours because of the game being a dick.

This is pretty much how I feel, though there are times I would like to save in Spelunky when I am doing well but need to step away.

As I said, I'm cool with having the option of savescumming.

Then again, providing that option needs resources from the developers. If those resources are then missing from something more integral to the game's concept, you've actively made the game worse.

Indeed, that is why there is no save in FIFA during match. As noted, saving can be essential to certain games and sometimes even to trial & error: lets see what this does? approach stimulating creativity. Speedrunds, for example, are only possible because of extensive knowledge of a game based on extensive trials and observation.

When I play Dragon Age:Origins on Nightmare difficulty quick save is my best friend. One moment I handle a mob just fine and the next a random Arcane Horror manages to wipe my entire team.

That and the accidental friendly fires on my tank. :s

Mazille wrote:As I said, I'm cool with having the option of savescumming.

Then again, providing that option needs resources from the developers. If those resources are then missing from something more integral to the game's concept, you've actively made the game worse.

I can't imagine the resources need are all that much in most cases. That's because developers themselves likely need some sort of "save state" functionality for testing rather than having to play a game to a certain point every time they want to test a different part of the game.
For playability the best option is to give the player a choice to either have quick saves available or not. I love it when games like Mount and Blade gives that type of option because it almost creates to different types of gaming experiences from the same game with one little option.