it's the smaller things

Remember a time when games didn't really have save points? They didn't need them really.

Games were short, but were a challenge to play. A challenge that you progressively got better at until you virtually finished the first stages without even thinking, or losing a life.

It was a simpler time. But also one that required a time commitment from the player. When you start playing a game, you play it with the intention to finish. Of course, the media wasn't as large or flexible to accommodate saving. Games were on tapes (saving could take minutes!), cartridges (expensive to produce), and very rarely floppy disks. It was more common to get a code to unlock the next level, rather than a save point. And we all had that time back then. We could all just load a game and just marathon play it until finished. Or at least try.

Games were designed with this limitation in mind. Imagine being able to save in R-Type, or Commando, or even Green Beret? If you could, you'd finish the game the day you buy it, and the thrill of playing would just disappear. There's nothing more thrilling than getting past that bit you're stuck on and move on a bit, just to hit a more challenging bit later on!

But then games started becoming more than games. They  started telling stories, involving us in their tales and making us connect with the characters. I challenge any gamer that says that they haven't been affected emotionally by a game. Whether you feel happy that the hero has done his deed, or sad at a death of a character, or even scared or nervous; games are involving us more than ever. Which is why we need save points now.

Imagine a book that you can't read unless you do it in one sitting. If you stop, you start from the beginning. You'll get bored of the repetition, you'll lose connection with the characters, and just not bother any more. Luckily the media we play games on now has evolved and we can save now. But, unlike a book, saving in games isn't like putting a bookmark, it depends on what the designer wants you to.

If the designer wants, they can let you save any time you like. The infamous F5 quick save hammering that we've all done when trying to complete a challenging level is borderline cheating. In fact, it is cheating. Or the designer can give us save points at calculated places. Some insanely distant and frustrating, some before key points in the game, and, the dreaded one, some after a pivotal moment where you can't go back and change your mind.

Saving is a smaller thing in games that is hugely overlooked. In the right hands, saving a game can be a very enjoyable experience, and one that adds to the game experience. See Full Spectrum Warrior for a great example of a save system that's integrated within the game world. In the wrong hands, saving becomes down right annoying. Lazily coded menus, odd interfaces that hinder the process, and long save times.

It can also be used to great effect to add (or remove) challenge from a game. The quick save mentioned above can significantly make a game easier (an odd example is FarCry 2. On the PC you can quick save, on consoles you can't - you have to find a safe house and sleep in it. The console idea is a lot more immersive), and checkpoints placed properly can make a game that more exciting. We've all played a game where you're fighting a tough section just to see (or hear) the checkpoint in the nick of time! It's a sensation of elation nothing else can mimic.

So here's to saving. The unsung hero of games these days. And here's to the developers that take the time and effort to think about their save points. To them, we salute you.