Wednesday, February 08, 2006


"Save games are manipulations of game time. They obviously allow the player to store the game state at a moment in play time and then later continue playing from that position." There are arguments that save games make it easier to complete a game. Yes to an extent this is true but how do you plan on completing a game if you can't save it. I would be upset if I couldn't save and then would have to keep replaying in hopes that I could get it all done. No one in the world(Prob not true) would want to play a game the first day they had it and beat it. You can still get the enjoyment of a game whether you play it all at once or you save it a 100 times. So in my opion bring on the saved games because it makes the game better and easier to play.


At 7:32 PM, Blogger Yildiz said...

So you are saying that you can't save a game when you complete a level? so next time you need to start from level 1!!

now that is really frustrating..

then how do players play War of Warcraft?

At 8:08 PM, Blogger Steve said...

I'm saying that we should save games because of that reason. It would be ridiculous to have to play games all over again if you died.

At 8:52 PM, Blogger Donggeol said...

Yes, I've never felt saving games are not needed. For me, game saving allows me being able to be more into games everytime I start a game from a certin point of time with a refreshed mind.

At 12:11 PM, Blogger Julius said...

... and if a game has about 200 hours of play time it would be really weird if you couldn't save it and come back later. That would almost be torture.

At 4:42 PM, Blogger Curtisgeist said...

Juul gives examples of arguments for and against save games. So, he was pretty even-handed on the subject. He comes out saying that it can be ok--at best a non-deterrent device.

Crawford's idea, cited by Juul (bootom left 138) is in a good spiri but too harsh. Both Crawford and Juul fail to consider taht the save game might be a unique asset of games.


Post a Comment

<< Home