It's only a safety net if you employ it. The Quicksave key doesn't press itself. Anyone who wants all-or-nothing gameplay always has that option.
This is usually followed up with the "if it's there, they'll use it" argument, but I've never bought that. Players are responsible for their own choices. Giving players more options is never a bad thing. Look at Soldier of Fortune 2. Number of saves linked to difficulty settings, but with the option to override the limits completely. Play the game the way you want (or are able). Games like KOTOR let you change difficulty settings on the fly. I never lowered the difficulty once, even during tough parts. Player choice.
Some designers have convinced themselves that a limited save system ensures the game is played "the way it's meant to be played." Can't begrudge them that indulgence, as they're the ones making it, but I don't see the logic in it. The whole concept of an interactive medium is give-and-take between developer and player, and I find imposing limited saves is just pure conceit.
The "adding tension" argument is often used, but it's weak. It adds tension, all right. But fear of making a fatal mistake is not the same as in-game immersive tension. That should be the design goal. If your battles aren't creating their own tension, they're poorly designed battles. Falling back on cheap gameplay conventions to generate more anxiety is just a copout.
How many times have I looked at a jump (for example) and thought "well, I'd TRY that, but no way I'm risking having to replay all this over again." Lots of games involve some sort of trial and error experimenting to succeed. It's ridiculous to force players to repeat huge segments over again.
It was dogma borne out of necessity (technologically) in consoles, but the industry's growing up. Conventions should, too.
|
