Darksouls is a game that could be quite an interesting game with a different save style. For example, I do not have the patience to put up with the cheap shit the boss battle throw at you. It's a shame because its a great style and cool combat.

Maybe the availability of checkpoints should vary by gameplay difficulty, more in easier levels. But I don't think I've noticed anything annoying about save systems in the games I play; I hardly notice/care about game checkpoints, but I like being able to save when I feel is right.

In Dark Souls there is a boss, that if you don't die once, you cannot kill him.
On this game punish is progress. Give it a chance. :)

I finished demons souls, I just found dark souls to be a lot cheaper. They should appeal the game to more people to be honest. Not every one wants to be punished. I'm from a time when games were about fun. :P

I've never really used quick save outside of 1 or 2 games. I'm fine with checkpoints to be honest.

You haven´t played "Mega Man" for Nes then :P

Appealing to everyone is not the answer as some want a more hardcore experience. And no, higher difficulties won't do it.. The game is either innately hard or it isn't worth their time. As for the people it doesn't appeal to, who makes them play the game anyway?

A) Life is random, you cannot always make decision knowing everything, that's how existing work, you don't get up in the morning knowing exactly what is gonna happen, you can only hypothesize basing on probability and your knowledge of the environment/people/situation you are gonna meet. Always trying to obtain the best possible outcome at all cost, is trying to always obtain the perfect choice, it's the same thing

There are cheap games sure, but that's bad design

But then again, as i have already said before, you are perfectly free to play a game in way you like, everything else it's an opinion and no matter what, someone will disagree

B) I disagree with you as well, should we make a discussion over it? See point A

C) Am i a better gamer then you? Perhaps, being more acclimated to harder (older, see "nintendo hard" for reference) games sort of forced my prospective in the necessity of a challenge and i find most modern game "lacking", truth is it doesn't matter, unless we are playing a multiplayer competitive game that is. Not being very good in a game doesn't make you a bad gamer, not being good at any challenge in a game normally considered easy mean that or you are not even trying, or that the game you are playing is just not your "type"

For me a game without challenge is boring, but then again see point A, someone is bound to disagree, and that's perfectly fine

Yes and what bothers me most is people who are against quick saving says that it will be abused like it's not a choice but a reflex.

Honestly, I've quit a few games just because they don't have a quick save/save anywhere feature (and because their checkpoints were too far apart. To me, quick saving doesn't make a game easier, it just makes the game more convenient. I mean, how does having to replay twenty minutes of a level just to get back to where you failed count as difficulty? You want to talk about "difficulty", how about quick saving yourself into an almost unwinnable situation?

i'm incline to use of quick save anywhere except right before boss fight.

A) You don't seem to understand. I'm not talking about basing my choices on the situation. I'm talking about not understanding the options the game presents me with.

For example: This is what I see on screen. I'm playing Mario. I want to open the door with the red X on it. Now here's the problem: I have no way of knowing whether "left" means my left or Mario's left.

I shouldn't be expected to read the game developer's mind.

B) There's nothing to disagree WITH. I don't understand what you meant. What do you mean by:

Sarcasm and fun are meant to be the same thing but presented in a different manner, i can have a serious opinion and at the same time present it in a sarcastic manner, it my right to do so, and frankly i don't understand you animosity towards it

If you want to be a troll be it with someone else, i said my opinion and you said yours, period

C) Again, you don't seem to understand. I have trouble with the controls in "modern" games. I played in the "Nintendo hard" era. Back then you had a D-pad and 2 buttons (4 if you count start and select). Most games only had 4 directions (Up, Down, Left, Right). That didn't stop the games from being hard.

A lot of the challenge for me today is just getting used to 3D games and dual joystick controls. It's hard to be proficient with a game when you're spending most of your time walking into walls while staring at your feet, but that's all I ever managed to do in Halo. I can't even turn a corner without walking in a circle in that game.

On top of that, modern controllers have more than twice as many buttons (PS3 for example has a D-pad, 2 joysticks, 4 buttons on the front and 4 buttons on the top). Half the time I can't remember which button does what.

It's not that I'm not trying (and do you have an idea how insulting it is to imply people less proficient than you simply "aren't trying). I just suck at modern games in general.

I agree. I like autosaves as a backup in case I forget to save, or save in a bad place, or a save gets corrupted. But I like being able to make manual saves and/or quick saves whenever I want (and have it put me in the same place when I load the save). That makes it much more convenient if I need to stop playing, or if the game crashes, or simply if there's a long easy part followed by a hard part (it's not a challenge to keep redoing the easy part, it's just boring).

If checkpoints are pretty close together in a very linear action-oriented game then it's usually not too frustrating (usually). But I really don't understand when exploration-based games or RPG's have checkpoints with no manual save option.

For example I just started Montague's Mount recently and, near as I can tell, there's absolutely no danger in the game. I'm just wandering around on a beach trying to find objects and solve puzzles. Yet it has checkpoints that seem to be pretty far apart (at least so far). Why? What possible reason could there be for that? It's not fun loading the game up and then trying to remember the locations of everything I picked up and looked at before and then speedrun through it just to get back to where I left off.

And with RPG's I can accept reasonable limitations like not being able to save during combat, but outside of combat I'm probably spending a lot of time randomly wandering around, browsing shops, talking to random people, organizing my inventory, etc. There's no way for the game developer to accurately predict what I'm doing and set reasonable checkpoints accordingly. In a situation like that, there's always going to end up being long periods of time without a checkpoint if the player is doing something unexpected (like not making progress in a quest) so it's better to just let us make manual saves.


I've had things like that happen to me too. I generally don't load a save if I made a real choice and the outcome wasn't what I expected (I love the Witcher games for surprising me like that). But it feels cheap if I pick a dialogue option thinking it means one thing but then my character says something completely different.

I'm having trouble thinking of specific examples, but it's definitely happened to me in Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2, and a few other games where I thought the brief phrase or silly icon was going to do one thing but then what my character actually did was totally not what I wanted to do.

I prefer when the game shows me the full line of dialogue before I choose to say it, although I don't remember being confused that way in Witcher 2 either so I guess the writers are a lot more logical in terms of accurately describing what each choice will do.

To clarify, I genuinely hate the ability to quick save.