you didn't HAVE to save "scum". It's called quick saving. You don't have to use it, but it's better than not having it.

Quick saving is save scumming, and in old games you did need to do it quite often, the challenges were built around it.
Edit: that was a reply to above but it didn't work that way for some reason.

I don't particularly have that type of nostalgia. In that, what I feel that I'd like or dislike has some objective merit and basis to go by. Since this thread is about the latter, I would say, one of that is pixel graphics. Not that pixel graphics is "wrong" mind you, certainly not! However, aren't we glad for more choices than pixels and 16-bit?

But don't forget the first function of saving : interrupting a game. It's very frustrating to lose progress because the game decided for longer gaming sessions than you have time for (in general or that day), or because of outside interruptions. Saving anywhere is very precious due to this.

In particular, save upon quitting is a very nice modern feature.

And I'm not against its abuse either. Saving and experimenting is a nice aspect of games, compared to life. So, the cost of having to dig into the game's folders to duplicate a file is a nice natural balance for such cases.

Everyone seem to like NES and the 8-bit generation but it's misplaced. Back then games were heavily limited, and not just graphically but in terms of available space. Games had to pad out their pitiful content either by grinding or by being unfairly difficult trial-and-error affairs. And the endings were always an afterthought, which adds insult to injury. I'll say it, we had much, much lower standards back then. 16-bit was a huge upgrade and much more deserving of nostalgia.

People rag on ''bloody screen so real'' regenerating health, but is limited health really better? Yeah, it's a resource but it's not one you can spend tactically. It just gets depleted when you mess up. Do it too much and the level becomes unwinnable so you have to start over or savescum. Real engaging, right? Regenerating health has its problems, but at least it gives you the confidence as you advance further into the level that you have the tools you need to get through it, if you're good enough. The difficulty comes from the fight itself, not from how much health you enter it with.

And I'm sorry, but fifth-generation graphics were ass. I've only played a few games that haven't aged horrendously, including Final Fantasy 8 and 9. Not 7. Even back then we'd make fun of the character models.

1.Definitelly "tank control" like in Resident Evil 1-3 - IMO it was never a good idea and it became quickly a dead end for action games (any kind) and I'm really glad that it died completely (at least I didn't notice any "new" game with this kind of control in last years).

2.Password system - maybe it wasn't a big deal in some cases (a couple of letters or combination of four symbols) but still - I prefer much more simple save game (even if it's limited to list of locked and unlocked levels) rather than collecting list of growing password codes (usually written on some random piece of paper which was often later lost). Good thing that passwords weren't especially popular in PC games in 90 (when I've started to play in PC games), or even if they were present - usually "near" some more standard type of save game.

3.Human characters in 3D games made in 90 or (very early) 2000' - some of old 3D games in my opinion still have the charm and "acceptable" graphics (e.g. Croc 1 and 2 are still enjoyable, despite their old age), but I personally really dislike human characters in games from this period - triangled abominations with mutilated limbs, ugh. "Old" 3d graphics was relatively fine for robots or "animal-style" characters (like in mentioned Croc), but not for humans.

4.Perma-death and traps with "delayed trigger" in adventure games - in my opinion adventure games should allow player to try, experiment etc. It's not a good thing when player is punished by death when simply tried to talk to some character. But it was even bigger problem when those "deaths" were veeery limited and unaware player could meet one of them after longer gameplay, without saving game earlier. The best example - Woodroof. Possibility to lose (not necessarly die) is triggered by some single cases, I especially hated the one with newspaper (reading it caused woodroof didn't want to perform any action anymore - there was NO WAY to know that you shouldn't pick it up.
Oh, and those "delayed" traps - if you didn't pick up bootle three in location you can't go anymore later, you will die after three hours of gameplay in location where you will have to go.

5. Fighting with configuration in DOS games - I really, really liked plenty of DOS games. But I remember well how I was forced to fight with their configuration back in Windows 95/98 era. Especially in terms of sound - I didn't had any "popular" model of sound card in my computer, therefore I needed to make experiments with choosing some sound blaster model (not having idea whats difference between SB pro, SB II etc) and those multiple channels and other stuff like that. I still had to play in many DOS games in absolute silence, or only with CD_audio music. So glad that nowadays I've got stuff like DosBox + D-fend (especially for D-fend, "naked" DosBox is not very intuitive), and due to the fact that GOG is selling games already configured, I don't need to bother even with some simplified configuration. Yay.

The resolution and number of details for audio and graphics were really low in the beginning, and while that still worked remarkably well, of course there is no comparison with today. Also the interfaces were sometimes really clunky and the general aesthetic of the user interface lacked style and elegance. Often enough, you had to read the manual before (which also had a charm), while modern games can be used much more intuitively. Finally, the delivery of the game data via physical transport over a wire is much more comfortable than with magnetic or optical discs.

DRM is mostly still the same, was evil then, is evil now.

Now to the list of things that have gotten worse...

Just kidding. Actually what amazes me most about the good old days is the sheer number of video games they made in the 90s and early 00s. Thousands and thousands of games. A source of big creativity. Now the big publishers make much bigger games and more expensive ones too, but also much less of them.

I never understood this and I'm neurotic as a baseline. Just change the hotkey to something like a Numpad key that is far aware from twitchy fingers or save when something new has happened like unlocking a new section or finished a cutscene.

Nowadays I'm sensitive to immersion breaks but that is very low on my list. Unnecessary cluttered HUDs, difficult spikes (either way) achievement pop ups are the worst.

20 or so individual stats, and not a descriptor to be found anywhere. Not even the old Exile games were immune to this. Tool tips are an amazing invention.

The constant fear that a misplaced magnet could ruin everything from your monitor to your disk drives.

Having to rely on a gaming magazine subscription to know that a game was even coming or existed.

Further to that, said game never coming out, never being localized, or falling into development hell and coming out on another system long after you forgot it.

Still along those lines, reading a review or expose of a game, only for said game to be utter pits. (Bubsy, countless Mega Drive games, licenced games)

That's a good one. I remember playing the MMO Tibia where I died once and lost 1.5 levels, skills and equipment I had spent hours acquiring. Suffice to say, losing time like that is a young human's game imo. I read that you could lose a couple of levels per death at really high levels and those people likely spent weeks or months getting there.

E.g. "we don't trust the player to handle saves on his own so let's just do it for them" mentality.
If you are bound on limiting the player's options and so worried about your preciously balanced fights, you can easily fix that by disabling saves while in combat. Many games have done that and I find that it is an acceptable middle ground.
If a player can't control himself with saving so that it is detrimental to his enjoyment of the game, only he is to blame and no one else. And if you can save anywhere, a scenario is always beatable.
Not to mention the annoyance of checkpoints with things like:
1) Finish a fight at 10HP
2) Spend 10 minutes scrounging the level for health, armor, ammo and secrets
3) Miss a jump right before the next checkpoint
4) Have fun repeating 2) or most likely:
5) Just exit the game for the day

OR you can just:

1) Have the ability to save when you want.
2) ????
3) Profit

I can see people inexperienced with old games easily getting lost. But once you get a little into those games, you can identify the usual trends and then the issue rarely arises again. And at least there is some variety from the action. People are just spoiled by the modern game design, unwilling to adjust.

Absolutely agreed. While having the option to quick save doesn't hurt anything, not having it sucks hard.


If you can't control yourself with saves and it is detrimental to your enjoyment of the game, only you are to blame. If you spam save to such a degree that you get annoyed, it is not the game's fault. And if you are actually good, you rarely have to resort to save scumming. Having to reload every 10 seconds should be your cue to reduce the difficulty, not blame the save system.

don't worry, I got it. :P

IMO, this sort of limitation is only sensible in games where there is a clear combat/non-combat distinction, like in traditional JRPGs and early WRPGs. In games where combat doesn't take you to a separate screen, you run into situations where the game thinks you're in combat (and won't let you save/rest), but where there isn't any enemy attacking you that you can see, which gets incredibly frustrating.

The first part of TES: Arena has this issue with resting; there may not be any enemies attacking you, but the game won't let you rest because "there are enemies nearby" (or something of that sort). (Fortunately, this game doesn't restrict saving that way.)

In other words, with this sort of limitation, you need a good definition of "in combat"; if you don't have a good one, you shouldn't inplement such a rule.

(Incidentally, I think I don't like "rest anywhere" as a mechanic, though even worse is "rest anywhere except in town" (which TES: Arena has), since I feel that towns should be the safe space where you rest, not the wilderness.)

For games with relatively short stages (like classic Mega Man), save after every stage is generaly good enough. (I note that Mega Man stages are like that until the castle stages, at which point there are no more places to save, which as I nave mentioned is a crippling flaw of MM4-6.)

Also, I am of the opinion that games shouldn't require players to gig into the game's folders just to experiment without affecting their main save file. (It's one of the reasons I dislike permadeath.)

A couple points:
1. Rogue had regenerating health; it's not a new mechanic.
2. Health can, indeed, be spent tactically. For example, you can choose to spend health instead of using a powerful attack that costs another resource or taking the time to dodge enemy attacks. Also, in many games you become invincible after getting hit, allowing you to just walk through an enemy that would otherwise be a pain, or remove the risk of another enemy knocking you back into a pit. There' s also the strategy of damage boosting, by taking advantage of knockback; in the original Castlevania, for example, you can skip the segment of the first block that has mermen and water pits. (Try watching a speedrun of Castlevania, or of the NES Ninja Gaiden games (especially pacifist speedruns), to see how health can be effectively be used as a resource.)

As I said before, this only works well in games where combat is on a separate screen; otherwise, there are problems with the definition of "in combat".

(How would you feel about a game that only let you save in combat?)

Edit: Also, not all challenges are combat challenges. Platforming challenges, for example.

In this case, I think point 2 can be largely eliminated by having the player respawn with full health and ammo after a death; hence the only thing to look for is secrets, and one's memory can reduce the time needed to repeat 2 after a failure.