Blood 2 practically requires it. I know, I know, Blood 2 is terrible, but it seems like every single enemy is a valid threat against the player, and some appear to be instant kills if they hit, like those little ticks and worms that grab your face. I managed to beat it, but the game was a brutal crawl that basically required you auto-save repeatedly. Iron Storm was easier, and that game had AI sniping at you from beyond the draw distance.

I haven't come across one in a while, but I really hate games that don't let you save. I can understand in the middle of a firefight not being able to save, but if I want to go to bed, this makes me either stay up too late getting to the next save point or replaying parts that I already finished.

I hate coming across as a hardcore gamerz, but I like challenging games, and I would hate it if devs made games easier than they already do; I wouldn't call Bioshock games challenging at all, honestly.

But that said, there should definitely be different modes in a game for a range of players.

Also, there are plenty of awesome games which have easy gameplay; anyone who doesn't like challenging games where the player dies a lot can always play those :]

Overall, though, games have rules, and if you figure out how to use those rules, then you can definitely play any game at tough difficulties; it's a good strategy to play the game on easy till you figure out how to play it, if you're having trouble.

I don't mind dying in a game. It's the time between checkpoints that I sometimes have a problem with. And I'd still prefer an option as to when I'd like to Save. I don't like having to leave a game due to events in the home, cooking, phone calls, the door bell, etc. and then start over. Maybe I'll change my mind one day when I'm as good a gamer as you are. :)

Oh, okay. But you see, some games add difficulty by limiting when you can and can't save. I mean, players could choose to not save if such an option was given, but I don't like it when games put the onus of having a challenging gameplay on the player via self-imposed handicaps; that makes no sense to me.

But I guess as far you're concerned, you might like to find games which allow saving at any time, and there are plenty of them :] Unfortunately, I can only think of Skyrim atm.

Oh, and I am not a good player, I just like failing at tough games :p

I just fail to see how having to repeat all the time-consuming and easy parts over and over again in order to get another shot at the tricky ones makes a game more "difficult" or "challenging". IMO it's just artificially prolonging the gamelength and trying the player's patience and frustration tolerance. Maybe that's a psychological challenge there, but not necessarily a clever game design which makes the game more "difficult".

Of course it's hard to discuss this on a general level, because some games with checkpoint systems get it right and work well, while others are messed up. VVVVVV for example can be a quite challenging game, it even has a counter of how many times you died, but its checkpoint system doesn't force you to repeat stuff for several minutes.

EDIT: Also, what marianne said; losing progress because you have to interrupt your gaming session sucks big time. And I don't like it when I spent much time hunting for collectibles or picking up items only to be ambushed and having to do it all again. IIRC Tomb Raider 2013 had a checkpoint system where your collectibles were saved despite dying, and I liked that.

Dishonored and Shadow Warrior 2013 allow it, too (to also name two recent action games).

You're right, it's hard to talk about this in a general sense because generally speaking, there shouldn't be an unnecessarily "time consuming" portion of the game; the entire game is time consuming, of course, so I guess you dislike any part that you think is unnecessary for the game.

As for easy parts, well, that's relative- a game is set up as intended (hopefully), so depending on how much of the game you understand, some parts may be easy for you, and other not so much. Or sometimes you just get unlucky and fail because of entropy.

I guess what people dislike is having to repeat themselves, but even with carefully placed checkpoints, some repetition is inevitable when you play a game with success/fail outcomes. I think there should be more games which let you continue/progress, but with different outcomes depending on whether you fail/succeed at something, or whatever.

What I mean is when a game has you repeat the same long sequences you already beat and you will beat more or less effortlessly again every time and there's nothing new to playing through it again but it still costs you time. That's when games get frustrating and boring. I'm not talking about games like Hotline Miami, where dying can be frustrating, too, but also a chance for a completely new approach with unpredictable outcome, and where restarting is quick and painless. I'm talking about those games that make you to repeat the same linear stuff over and over again, and possibly also force you to watch a cutscene each time. That's what I mean by "time-consuming" because in those cases I don't feel as if spending my time on it is rewarding anymore. The first few tries might still be fun time, but after that it becomes an aggravatingly repetitive chore.

Personally, if I keep failing at something over and over again, I either try something else, or try to find out what I should be doing instead, or take a break; sometimes it's just your brain getting fried :]

But I guess out of all the games in existence, there have to be some poorly made turds which do feel like a chore when you play them.

edit: lol, forget it all. I think I misunderstood this thread, nevermind me.

Exactly, but if you have to repeat long boring sequences before you can try something else, such experimentation is discouraged; and if you lose all progress on quitting the game, taking a break is discouraged too. And that's what's taking the fun out of these games for me. Like I said, VVVVVV and Hotline Miami (with the exception of the boss fight) were games that mostly got it right - VVVVVV because you didn't lose much time by dying, Hotline Miami because every new try was different and therefor exciting again, and the levels were also short enough that losing progress on dying or quitting didn't matter all that much. But other games end up being less fun for me because of their save system, because they punish you for experimentation or taking a break by really wasting your time with boring replays of sequences you had no difficulties with.

I guess the challenge comes in trying to figure out why you keep losing. Or if that's not entertaining for you to do in the case of that game, then I agree- best to give it up as a bad job, then.

Okay, question- when do you start thinking about your alternative strategy?

edit: what I mean is that it makes sense to do it before you get to a problematic point, so you know exactly what you're doing when you get there. I mean, I don't know man, maybe I just haven't played the games you're talking about, and so that's why I can't relate. I have experienced losing over and over again in many games, so I am just going based on that.

I would propose game developers from now on sell two versions of game: one version with save game anytime anywhere for those of us who have limited time to play or lots of real life distractions, want to pause every now and then and want to stop playing anytime they want, or just want to casually play without repeating frustrating parts again and again; and the second version with no save game system whatsoever or permadeath mode for those of us who want challenges and tensions of the game, or who are just secretly masochistic. That way everyone will be happy, no self-imposed challenges, no optional save scumming restraint.

:-D

And of course if you like challenging games, you're a no lifer with no real life distractions. Whatever, lol.