Great games with AWFUL save systems

[quote name='Otherguy676']Save anywhere is grea, however, I learned its not entirely neccessary. For example

I got Final Fantasy Adventure (Game Boy) when it came out. I made it about 80% through the game and was loving every minute of it. So I'm right at the end and I get Moogled (cant do any action but walk for a limited time). I then saved it because I had to do something (save anytime) and came back awhile later. When I started playing, I realized I was Moogled and poisened and stood there helpessly as my character died every time. Game over. Everytime. Not one of my smartest days.[/quote]

I understand this, but that's why you have save anywhere with at least three save slots. (Some older games may have not had the space, but that should not be an issue any more). I would much rather be victim of my own idiocy than be screwed over by a developer's choices, especially when their reasons may make wonderful sense for them but make no sense for me.

One gripe of mine is the decision to make some games' saves uncopyable (yeah, I mean you Burnout and you Culdcept). The developer's desire to prevent people from copying/trading save files should not impede me if I have to move the save to or from a memory card.

I agree with NSMB and would add FFIII. The DS sleep mode mitigates the awfulness here a little, but since they are portable games, the game should not punish you if you need to turn off the DS or are running low on battery. Or have had enough and want to switch to something else.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Crap, I misread the title. Breath of Fire V is NOT a good game, but it does indeed have an awful save system.[/quote]

You have bad taste.

It wasn't even that bad, there were coins everywhere.

The battle system is basically Arc The Lad ToS without sucking horribly.

I think it's weird that people who love Persona 3 dislike Breath of Fire V, the dungeon crawly is pretty similar.
 
[quote name='Anotherbobhead']The more I heard the developers opinion on their save system along with other people that enjoyed the game, the more logical it became. It felt like the developers were trying to make the game more challenging by forcing you to have to fight back through hordes of zombies to get to the few save points in the game, so now I actually love that system.
If any save system bothered me, it would be Bioshock, since you COULD save anywhere and it eliminated the difficulty along with the ressurecty thingies. Whatever they were called, lol[/QUOTE]

Ummm...wrong...Bioshock has some tough spots, and I love being to save anywhere, since I can get past certain parts and not have to go back and replay over and over. You still have to get pas the hard parts, saving anywhere just makes it easier to tolerate!!
 
[quote name='willardhaven']You have bad taste.

It wasn't even that bad, there were coins everywhere.

The battle system is basically Arc The Lad ToS without sucking horribly.

I think it's weird that people who love Persona 3 dislike Breath of Fire V, the dungeon crawly is pretty similar.[/QUOTE]

I loved ATL: Twilight of the Spirits but hated BOFV. :lol:
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']I loved ATL: Twilight of the Spirits but hated BOFV. :lol:[/quote]

I would enjoy seeing you break down the battle systems of each game comparatively.

There is just nothing in ToS that isn't more successfully implemented in Dragon Quarter, except the save system.

Sorry for busting your chops, I think DQ is one of the best JRPGs ever made. Plus it shares its initials with Dairy Queen.
 
To this day no game's save system has pissed me off as much as River City Ransom. So many different fucking letters and numbers that I ALWAYS messed up on and it takes forever to put them in.


1064338610-04.jpg



And the GBA remake saves your stats ( I think) but not your progress. I think they did that so you wouldn't blow through the game in like, an hour, but I honestly wish they wouldn't restrict the game so much.


Die Hard Trilogy on playstation had a similar password system that was probably even longer with more random letters you'll mess up on, but that had a memory card save option that all the sane people used.
 
Dead Rising times 1000!

This game just pissed me off. For those of you who don't know, here's the system in a nutshell. There are only a few places where you can save, and none of them are ever near you. The mall is huge and you have to go basically everywhere to copmlete the game. The game is brutal as hell in the beginning with zombies everywhere and you have little health. So let's say you defeat a psychopath (which is already hard if you're not stocked well enough) and you want to save. You would have to go halfway across the mall half-dead from the fight only to get eaten alive by a zombie. You would have to redo everything all over again.

Lame! This game would've been SO much better if it had a save anywhere feature as well as a true infinity mode (but that's something else).

BTW, what's with a lot of Capcom games lacking save anywhere features?
 
I really didn't mind DR's save system, except in the very beginning (I kept doing the first fight with Carlito, then following Brad over to talk to Barnaby, then going back, and not realizing there was a save point in between all that). But I mean, there's a save point in like every plaza.
 
Mass Effect's autosave system is so inconsistant that it's almost broken. Sometimes it saves when you enter a new new area, other times not. There have been a few frustrating moments where I've had to replay big sections after believing an autosave had recently happened and then dying. I have no problem with the regular save feature and believe more harm would come if you could save around enemies.

-Bob
 
[quote name='woxl']Mass Effect's autosave system is so inconsistant that it's almost broken. Sometimes it saves when you enter a new new area, other times not. There have been a few frustrating moments where I've had to replay big sections after believing an autosave had recently happened and then dying. I have no problem with the regular save feature and believe more harm would come if you could save around enemies.

-Bob[/QUOTE]

Been awhile since I played but didn't mass effect have a manual save on top of the auto?
 
Lunar 2: Eternal Blue for the Sega CD.
You had to use points that you earned to level up your spells, and those same points were used to save the game. So you either had crappy skills, or didn't save often. This was implemented by Working Designs for the USA version only.
 
[quote name='coolsteel']Been awhile since I played but didn't mass effect have a manual save on top of the auto?[/quote]

Yup. The regular save works really well. You can save anywhere except when enemies are in the same area. The autosave is just aggravating in its inconsistency :bomb: Not to the point of ruining the game at all (still a great game) just makes the autosave much less useful than it could be.

-Bob
 
I've been playing Assassin's Creed lately and it made me think of this thread. The save system is basically the opposite of Mass Effect's, so it autosaves almost instantly after you do anything notable. There's also only one save slot.

That's probably good for 99% of cases, but since the game has hidden package-type sidequests with literally hundreds of packages, I was trying to avoid picking them up in case I ever wanted to do a thorough search with a checklist. Then the other night I accidentally picked one up and it was frustrating knowing that now I've got this one random flag to keep track of.

I just thought it was unusual that though there's absolutely no way short of starting a new game (and thus overwriting your one save) to undo any progress, even though there aren't many reasons to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top