- Lack of quick save is often a positive thing, even in PC games. The lack of a life line increases the suspense and increases the stake. Resident Evil handles this really well with limited number of saves. Forced save points by design makes the run from A to B more thought out.

Okay, here's mine, none of this is a joke.

Tomb Raider was trash right from the start. The only reason it was hyped up because people in the 90's like cone shaped boobies.

Monkey Island 2 is the worst Monkey Island game. With the cluttered inventory (all new pick ups were placed at the bottom), obscure and illogical puzzles as well as the bad ending, I honestly don't understand how this was rated higher than MI4

Halo: Combat Evolved was a generic sci-fi FPS offering nothing we hadn't seen before. Yes, it pushed limits on console multiplayer FPS games but it was NOT, and I quote some review, "The reason to buy an X-Box"

Heroes of Might and Magic 4 was not a bad game, it just didn't get enough polish before release.

Icewind Dale was better than Baldur's Gate. For a story focused RPG, the writing in BG was quite bad, especially when it came to side quests, sometimes making no sense at all. IWD skipped all that and just focused on the combat which made it the better game.

Console Gaming in and of itself doesn't suck, it's just a different gaming experience. This in general might not be an unpopular opinion but it might be on a forum dedicated to PC gaming.

I agree so much on this one. When I played it for the first time back in 2007 I had to force myself through it. To this day it's the most boring and repetive FPS I've ever played. The level design is horrible, tte perfect example of what not to do. The mechanics might have been good, but the rest of the game bored me so much that I failed to acknowledge that.

At one point I wondered if the game was bugged or if I did something wrong because the same area kept repeating over and over again for ages. Turns out they just used ctrl + c, ctrl + v a lot.

Because MI4 had "Monkey Combat". Also I consider MI2 ending quite interesting and regret creators decided to abandon the idea (that's btw can be quite unpopular opinion on my part).

Final Fantasy 7 is the worst JRPG to ever enter the conversation about the best JRPGs of all time. It's also one of the worst games to ever enter the conversation about the best games of all time.

Gothic 1 has the best open world in a videogame.

Super Mario World is better than Super Mario Bros 3.

- Preferred Baldur's Gate 1 to 2. Both are good games but I really don't get the disproportionate hype for the second one. I liked the progression & pacing of the first more (BG2 gets massively bogged down in Chapter 2 with almost every sidequest in the game being "front-loaded" and even one of the devs later admitted how jarring that was for main plot progression for many). And the few things I disliked about BG1 (NPC quest timers) was dialled up to 11 in BG2. I also don't get the misleading advice some give to "skip the first and just play BG2, you won't miss much". If I'd have done that, I wouldn't have had a clue who half the NPC's or plot related chars were...

- Preferred Fallout 3 to NV. The immediate post-war atmosphere and desperation of scavenging a ruined supermarket felt far more "Fallouty" than wandering around luxury casinos. It had the better radio station announcer & DLC too (eg, Point Lookout vs Dead Money).

- Preferred Heretic to Hexen. The hub-based latter was OK but the former much better nailed down the smooth level progression, great level designs and simple fun gameplay as a "Medieval Doom".

So don't use it. There's no need to remove the option for others. That's what annoys me in arguments about such features like quick saves, hot-spot indicators, fast travel, auto map etc. - just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. Having those features doesn't hurt those who don't like them, but removing them hurts those who do.

I hate having to re-do the same stuff over and over, for me lack of the option to save whenever I please only leads to tedium and boredom of replaying the same crap over and over again rather than tension and suspense. Not to mention how I absolutely loathe that moment in games when I'm tired and want to quit, but have to push on to find a checkpoint first or I'll lose all my progress. That's just inexcusable.

The Mako was fine. It was ME1's copy-pasta planets - "It's purple now instead of blue or green! Get Psyched!" - and side-quest zones that really bothered me. Inventory shuffling was never all that fun in that game either.

I agree that it can be annoying and bad game design as well. It's just that having the option to save creates a false sense of tension since it can be too tempting to save at hard passages. If the option is there, the undisciplined min/maxer in me is going to abuse it.

In a perfect world, games would have the option to iron man the game when you start it. Removing quick saves would be dumb for all the reasons you listed and more.

Because the old TR games can't be fun. Nope! No, sirree! Not a chance! =P I always thought those eye-pokers were ridiculous, but the actual gameplay is still enjoyable. Sure, those somewhat rigid controls aren't for everyone, but that doesn't make the games trash.

This I actually agree with.

Also, another one I am thinking of:
* When talking about the history of CRPGs, games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (in other words, JRPGs) are just as important as the standard WRPG mentions (Ultima, Wizardry, Might and Magic). JRPGs should be included in such a history, and should not be relegated to a separate chapter. (This is one case where I disagree about that CRPG book's handling of this, and this comes just from looking at the table of contents.)

Well, they had to draw a line somewhere. CRPGs and JRPGs are like apples and oranges.

Lack of quick save, by itself, doesn't just prevent the player from saving anywhere. Also, to me limited number of saves is an instant turn-off, and is bad enough that I would consider it a dealbreaker.

On the other hand, I have another one:
* Not all the game state needs to be saved. The more game state that is saved, the more likely a player will save themself into a softlock. Partial saving, while it might lead to exploits, also provides ways to get out of softlocks. Similarly, games with save anywhere shoud provide an escape option, accessible without having to first load the game normally. (Golden Sun is an example of a game that had such an escape option, while Final Fantasy Adventure is an exampe of a game that needed one.)

I could also mention another one:
* Story should never be favored over gameplay. If a story event hurts the gameplay in any way (for example, by trapping the player in a dungeon with no way to go back to heal or level up, or by taking away the character who is most interesting from a gameplay perspective), the story should be adjusted so that that doesn't happen. Change the story to fit the gameplay, not the other way around. (The one exception here would be visual/kinetic novels, particularly the latter since there's no gameplay in them to begin with.)

One thing that's often overlooked; having a cutscene after a boss can be a problem in this case. Some players might be tired after beating the boss and just want to save and quit, or might have to get to work after playing (the example I'm using here), but the game doesn't let them. As a result:
* If cutscenes are skippable (as they should be, if they're going to be included in the first place), the player has to choose between skipping the cutscene and potentially missing out on important story information or not quitting and possibly being late for work.
* If cutscenes are not skippable, then the player ends up late for work, which is not a good thing. Or, perhaps, the power goes out before the player can save and they have to repeat the boss fight.

Speaking of softlocks. At the end of Final Fantasy VII, I managed to use the portable save early enough in the end dungeon that I couldn't retry the end boss without tons of walking, but I still saved at a point where I couldn't return back and grind to make it easier. That caused me to never finish the game.

That reason alone makes me agree with all people in this thread that think's that game is overrated. FF VII is full of flaws, mediocre story that tries to appeal to teenagers and bad mechanics overall.

That's not true. JRPGs are a (proper) subset of CRPGs; every JRPG, without exception, is a CRPG, much they way that every pigeon is a bird. (I don't classify TRPGs made in Japan as JRPGs, but then again, I am not aware of any TRPGs of Japanese origin.)

If you mean WRPGs instead of CRPGs, then there are differences, but there's cross-polination between JRPGs and WRPGs (and TRPGs; the "rest heals all" mechanic from Dragon Quest 1 made it into 5e D&D, for example), and there are games that straddle the lines (many of the SaGa games, for example; we even see a bit of that with Final Fantasy 2's keyword system for certain key dialogs).