[quote name='Vegan']The extra thrill that this system creates when you succeed doesn't compensate for the utter annoyance you feel when things don't go your way. People stop playing games over things like this. It's time to move past "going back and replaying" as a punishment in games. "Losing 45 minutes of gaming" should never be an option that has to be weighed in the first place.[/quote]
I see your point, but I think the issue at hand deserves more than just a "black or white" approach: there's lots of instances in which I would agree with you, but, as I said in my post, I feel that FarCry 2's limited save system actually enhances the type of gameplay that its developers were aiming for.
IMHO, it's a bit narrow-minded to think that, in a game that's all about creating a realistic sense of survival, the experience is broken when "things don't go your way". Heck, even in our cushy American lifestyles, things don't always go the way we'd like--I would imagine that trying to survive in the type of environment depicted in FarCry 2 would result in a lot of chance if careful planning wasn't involved; but if the option of saving anywhere existed, players would stop planning and instead rely on the whole "do-ever" phenomenon, which would break the entire illusion. At that point, you're just left with any other run-of-the-mill FPS, which God knows there's way too many of.
I agree that the type of save system used in FarCry 2 wouldn't work in every game, but I think it's ignorant not to see its purpose in FarCry 2.