I never said it was a flaw. I said that I don't like it. It's a very basic and simple distinction, and yet apparently a lot of people have a problem with understanding it. Go ahead and enjoy your games the way you like. It's just that I personally have things to do with my time I find more fulfilling than losing progress in a game over and over or spending hours stuck on some fight trying to "git gud" in a video game I will likely never play again after I'm done with it.

So please, spare me this "I'm so much smarter and better because I'm a macho super hardcore gamer" pose. It's just silly. Just play the games the way you like. You can never ever save your game at all for all I care. The way you like to play games doesn't bother me, so don't get all up in arms over the way I like to play.

And hell - there are exceptions to everything. I love Swat 4 for example, and I agree it only makes sense with its no save/no checkpoints approach. But would it bother me if someone else could play it super easy saving all the time? Hell no.

And I never said that. Please use your own advice.

Sure you do need to save manually in a "Soulslike," because otherwise your progress gets erased.

When you say "they autosave after pretty much every action," that statement is misleading, because the impression it gives the reader is that the autosave is an equivalent stand-in for manual saves; it gives readers the impression that the autosaves save your progress just like a manual save would.

But in actual fact, that isn't the case at all.

Rather, the "autosaves" you mention do not save your progress anywhere so much as they instead save the game's internal erasure of your progress.

For example, with a manual save, you could save the game right before you die, then die, then reload the saved game at the point right before where you died. You lose no resources, and you lose no time backtracking back to the point where you died, and having tediously to replay all those same sections over again.

Can all of that also be done exactly as I've just described it in this "The Surge" game? If the answer is 'no,' then that's proof that its autosaving is nothing at all like manual saving would be, but instead that its autosaving 'feature' exists primarily to, as I said, save the game's erasure of your progress.

I will say most modern games don't interest me. I upvoted you b/c this is at least a different complaint from you, not art-related. ;)

How is stating that I haven't heard about a game a complaint at all?

Yeah that isn't I guess, my first sentence was focused on that. Wouldn't this be a complaint? "Hell, not being able to manually save whenever I want is already a poor choice in my book, downright a terrible one in any sort of RPG." (I'm not saying it's not a valid complaint or is.)

I hope the sequel will be here next month.

I really like this game. It has a cool vibe after playing it for 30 minutes. So far I'll give it 8.9 out of 10.

The main problem is that it took ages for the first the surge to come here. I'm trying to be positive though: I refrained from purchasing the surge 2 on steam because I'm waiting for a gog release this time around (hoping it will not take too much time).