Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't played Thief 2 yet but time limits bother me.

Easier said than done. I rather skip a game, complain about a certain game's save system, suck and move on to a preferred game than your solution. If yours work for you, good for you but I'll still disagree with it. Also, if it's not fun it doesn't matter if you suck or not.

It is but I believe people draw the line differently. Bugs are easy to blame but poor design? That's highly subjective. I'm not saying you said anything to the contrary, only pointing it out.

I also agree. To me not understanding self-made challenges is lacking imagination and I rather excel or enjoy those then chase someone else's goal with rules I don't agree with. Games are for fun, they are not about survival (IMO).

What a nothing statement.

What the fuck has that to do with the quoted part?

Why should gamers be punished for dying? My interpretation of a fun game may be different to yours. I tend to prefer games which are not taxing and my frustration ceiling is pretty low.

Therefore, should developers not cater to my gaming needs because of your unwritten principle? Playing devils advocate, I could turn this on its head and say that all games should be easy......if you don't like it, make it harder for yourself in the settings. If it's still too easy, play it with a patch over one eye.

I thankfully haven't played a lot of that use only autosave checkpoints, so my experience with them is minimal.

The only game that infuriated the hell out of me due to them was Mirror's Edge. Having the checkpoints paced out so badly, I was dying constantly. It is amazing I was able to finish that game.

I played through Bioshock: infinite recently (and got through it on normal), and there were maybe 1 or 2 places that it bothered me, but otherwise it was okay.

I agree that if there isn't a reason for it, at least on PC ports, they should have a proper savegame system. I also played through Spec Ops: The Line recently, and in that game, although again there were several places I was stuck repeating the same segment over and over and over, I can understand the desire for autosave vs savegames in that, narratively.

just wow

Oh boy! XD

Ref:
In a "save anywhere" system, one whom prefers checkpoint saves can simply choose to save at certain "checkpoint" locations (like maybe at a base before heading out of it, or before talking to a quest NPC); and then not save again until they think another proper "checkpoint" location has appeared

One that prefers a "save anywhere" system, playing a "checkpoint saves only" game does not have that choice to save where they like. They can only save where the checkpoints are.

In a checkpoint system, you are "forced" to play within the constraints of the checkpoint system . In a save-anywhere system, you are not. Additionally, in a save-anywhere system, those preferring a checkpoint system still retain that option - by choosing themselves to limit their saves to "checkpoint" locations.

But we already talked about that on page 1.

To quote myself:

"Also, of course, a game with a save anywhere function is designed around it. The way encounters are set up, the difficulty level, the flow of the game, the level structure... you obviously won't get the feeling of checkpoints by being parsimonious with the quicksave function, you'll only get a subpar experience that's neither here nor there."

There's no fundamental difference between this debate and the ones over recharging health or cover systems.

Or to, put another way, the mere fact that (almost?) nobody who prefers limited saves wants them introduced to pure point&click adventures proves you wrong.

Edit:

Simply releasing two versions of a game isn't a solution either, unless both versions are so fundamentally different that they each embrace their respective save system and the fights are designed with it in mind, which of course is not at all realistic.

Oh my, let's just battle generalizations with more generalizations, surely, that'll work!

First of all, majority of save anywhere systems also have checkpoints implemented, and those tend to work rather well all by themselves. How do I know? I do choose to play some save anywhere games with checkpoints. Most of the time, they work just as well as a game designed around checkpoints. You should probably try that as well before passing judgement - I have played Dishonored with checkpoints only, Far Cry 2 with checkpoints only, at the time even Morrowind but I definitely do not recommend doing so (it's one of the games that doesn't really work with checkpoints very well.)

But when I want to save in a game designed solely around checkpoints, I just get frustrated, because... Well, I have no bloody choice in the matter.

Don't think that would work, but surely the result would still be less sad then actually ending up arguing the very opposite of what you started off with, right?

Oh, I did. I also did the opposite: I've played checkpoint based console games via emulators with integrated quicksave slots.

Personally, I would enjoy games build around limited saves that also offer a save anywhere functionality. But would those people who enjoy quicksave shooters have as much fun using the function in, say, Gears of War? I know I wouldn't.

Pleased to be of service!

Noooooo - never, ever, ever use my experience as a reflection of an average gamer!! I'm a complete lightweight so the chances are you'll love Tomb Raiders and Legend of Grimrock,

. . .
. . .
I played Tomb Raider yesterday for 6 hours and love it. It has a nice story, it's fun, lots of action and not too challenging. AND when you die, you get another "go" without going waaaayyy back. Now that's a plus.
I bought 3 more TR games that Steam has on sale.

If I'm not mistaken LoG and the first TR series have a "save anywhere" function though, haven't they? Or does LoG actually have a checkpoint system? I've only played it for a bit so far, and that was a while back ...