The problem isn't the ability but the ability to use it. Do you blame a murderer who uses a gun for the gun? No, the user.

I remember that one. I didn't play it for exactly that reason.

I don't like quick saves, as a rule. I would think a lot of people would have a natural tendency to overuse them. Before and after every little area or what have you, quick save. Even with restrained use I'll nonetheless find myself playing an area repeatedly until I get through it perfectly and unscathed, or nearly so. It dices up the game too much, makes it repetitive—both of which detract from the flow of a game—and makes it too easy.

I feel like there should be some sort of challenge overcome before you're allowed to save, like completing a level or substantial section thereof, depending on size and difficulty and whatnot. In a game that's more linear in design, a well considered checkpoint system is ideal here, though "well considered" obviously being key. It's all in the implementation, as with any other game mechanic.

Of course, there are some types of games where a checkpoint system isn't really appropriate, those that are more non-linear in particular. Here I think what are better are the sort of save systems where you can control it, but there are limitations of some sort put on its accessibility. Maybe that's save stations placed around the map (again, the success of which depends on their implementation; they can't be unreasonably out of the way). Or something like in Outcast, which I'm presently playing, where you have to find an area where you can't be detected by enemy guards, and it takes a moment to actually run through a save animation, pick your slot and name it. Stuff like that.

I wonder if anyone has ever considered or even implemented a cooldown type of system for quick saves. Like, you can save when and wherever you want, but each time you save a given amount of time or progress has to pass before you can do it again.

Yes, it does bother me how nearly everything seems to use check points these days.
I think it's a console thing.

I don't mind not being able to save when in combat though, like in witcher 2.
What I do mind is the lack of freedom caused by checkpoints.

It's a funny analogy because when it comes to that whole amok thing I usually focus on "why the fuck did he have a gun and how did he get it?". Because, you know, it's easier to control the tools at people's disposal than people's behaviour. :P

so quick save, but-not-so-quick loading?

If the game have checkpoint save system only I dont play it

Bioshock infinite?checked
Splinter cell? Checked
Hitman abomination ..sorry absolution ? Checked

and the list goes on and on

Depends. Saving should always be relatively quick unless they fuck it up. Loading can then basically be approached in two ways:
a) A game throws away all of its already loaded bits (even assets when Hitler's programming) and reloads everything from a 'blank' state, as if you clicked 'load game' in main menu. It's worth noting that games do tend to keep their assets like models, textures and stuff loaded, no point in clearing memory and they're very simple to reuse anyway. Still, this is the 'long but lazy' approach to loading - loading screen will usually be like half the time of loading from main manu, due to already loaded assets.

b) A game tries to reuse everything loaded and just 'forget' the changes you've done since the last save, basically - like resetting enemy positions, player position, AI states etc. In this case, it's technically not loading anything new, so it's pretty much instantaneous, but it's also much more difficult to implement - you have to take special care that all triggered scripts are reset (as in those you have triggered between saving the game and loading it), that all enemies forget you and continue on their standard partol, things like that. If you've ever seen that you have loaded a game in a stealth-based game and everybody knew where you are or that a script failed to trigger after loading, it means something got screwed in the process. Incidentally, this is how checkpoints are handled as well - for obvious reasons, it's way easier to do with checkpoints most of the time as you know where is the game going to save.

It's especially irritating that you can't quite die in Bioshock Infinite, so designers didn't really take care to place checkpoints reasonably apart.

I agree. I liked the way that Bloodlines handled it. It cycled through several autosave slots (I think 4?) saving at key points and every so often when the map loaded a new area, and then it also had a few separate quick save slots that it cycled through when the player pressed quick save. And of course it had manual saving on top of that. So even if it crashed or was saved in a bad spot, chances are the previous save wasn't too far away.

In games that allow quick saving, I generally save frequently as insurance in case the game crashes or glitches, or in case something totally unexpected happens and I die. However I don't load very often unless I did die or something else really bad happened (like if I clicked something by mistake and turned the whole town hostile against me or something along those lines which I didn't mean to do).

If someone is constantly quick saving, loading the save, and redoing the same bit of gameplay inch by inch then I definitely see how that sucks the fun out of it. But that's essentially what checkpoint saves do to me. At least with quick saves (or manual saves in general), I have the choice to pick where I save so I can minimize the amount of gameplay I have to redo (there's no point in continually redoing the easy part if I'm only having trouble figuring out how to get past the hard part). But with checkpoints, the game forces me to replay the same areas over and over again if there's one part that's giving me trouble. That just drags things out and makes it boring for me because I really want to move on already but the game keeps making me redo the parts I got past a bunch of times already.

Then I say like Fenixp: add an Iron Man mode. Turn it on if you can't control yourself. :P

I'll say it again: it's not as much about me being unable to control myself and it's not like I can't enjoy a single one of those great classics with quick saves. And no, my saving behaviour doesn't look as bad as you suggested earlier. I actually can control myself and will try to portion the combat into sensible chunks so it's still fun and I still get a feeling of accomplishment. At least if it's a good game. But it's just bad design, IMO, and it encourages further bad design. The exception maybe being sandbox RPGs like Skyrim or Stalker. And I just feel that as a player my last responsibility should be to portion the challenges and that I shouldn't be able to predict enemy locations and behaviour or retry single *shots* until I'm satisfied.

But well, yeah, actually I don't mind an "Iron Man" mode. The Hitman games limit saving on higher difficulty levels and I'm happy. :P

Anyway, I highly encourage you to try some of those "meh" shooters from the quick save era and ask yourself how many of those got away with fatal flaws that never would have been allowed in a checkpoint based game. I'm talking about games where the enemies' godlike aiming and the lack of healing items would have made it impossible to beat them if it weren't for quick saves.

I'm dead tired on shooters and I don't use saving that often, I also don't feel the need to abuse it to my advantage like scouting ahead then reverting back (I agree that takes the fun out of it so I don't do it).

Regarding portioning the challenge...I don't know, I feel like I usually have more fun if I strive to achieve what comes naturally (like exploring or trying something out that is in my control) rather than beat this map in X time or Y amount of enemies.

So go and play one of those meh games with checkpoints - badly designed checkpoint systems are just as bad as badly designed 'save anywhere' systems. Checkpoints too far away from each other, right after cinematics, saving at awkward moments that you could not recover from later etc. Badly designed game is a badly designed game, period - and most modern games with save anywhere feature also combine it with generous checkpoints, so using manual save is often enough just not necessary.

Yeah, that's where the bit about them being "well considered" comes into play, which of course applies to any save mechanic. I've definitely played games where you'll have some sections between checkpoints that are easy while others are long and difficult. There's a balance problem there. Or there are the cases where you mess up horribly then the game unexpectedly saves on you. Oh no! 'Course, sometimes it's good to be forced to live with the consequences.

But mind you, I'm not advocating for checkpoints solely or even above other types of save mechanics. I don't know that there's a singular ideal system, really. It depends a lot on the game type and design, and some types of save systems are more suitable for some games, while others are more appropriate for others.

I'm just not a fan of the typical quick save because I think that, as a general rule, it's best if there's some way for the game's save mechanics to somewhat force, or at least encourage, a good chuck of play and accomplishment between saves, as well as having to live with those aforementioned consequences. But while also being flexible enough that you don't have to needlessly repeat the less- or even non-challenging parts of the game, like conversations and whatnot, for example. And that can come in a variety of implementations.