Free to wait!
Pay to win!

Eh, I don't have the energy to whinge about it any more 

cant be turned off or turned down.

I'm ok with this to be honest because I think it really fits the tone of the game and is pretty funny. But it should probably have been an option. 

Anyone have this working, by any chance?
http://www.zoorace.com

Trailer:
http://youtu.be/e_MOX99ltoY 

Ah ye fucks simply get an emulator and play the original roller coaster tycoons on ya devices. Dosbox works great btw you know ? 

There was a 'speedrun' of it at the last AGDQ during the Awful Games section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXQT_LtwDPw 

I guess that confirms the game is as glitchy as it looks. Looks like a fun bad game for parties, I'm just concerned it won't run on every second computer. 

it's 2014 and i can't save before i quit. 

2013 game, hth. 

ah ok, saving was pretty new back then so i guess that's why. 

You make it sound like saving is a technical issue and not a game design decision. 

for me, it is very much a technical issue. i don't give a crap about game design when it comes to things like this. when i leave the game, it should save my progress. saving progress for me is basic functionality.

i've seen some drivel about how not being able to save serves some gameplay function while i was looking for a hack or config change to enable saving; it was completely irrelevant. 

Saving is a fundamental human right. 

Yeah, game designs that rely on no saving are always hindered by it. I play a lot of rogue likes and roguelites, and it always seems they just couldn't be arsed doing a proper save system as opposed to following some higher design aesthetic. 

I think saving and pausing should be standard by now. Even roguelikes should have saving IMO. I guess this is a design decision for the most part, if saving exists then I bet you could cheat your way to victory (just copy/paste save files so you dont lose progress if you die). 

isn't there a checkpoint like every 2 minutes in that game? How much progress did you really lose by quitting in the middle of a combat? 

7376: Roguelikes are a very niche game, catering to a specific gamer. I don't play roguelikes because I can't stand not being able to save, but that's ok because a roguelike is not my niche.
Bioshock Infinite annoys me because it is a AAA game aimed at (supposedly?) a wide range of gamers and that's what I expected of it.

7377: I must have bad luck then because I was going about 30 minutes between checkpoints.
Also, the checkpoint save is hard to see because it's just this little spinny thing in the corner of the screen. Obviously this is to make it unintrusive, but because of the way the save system works, it should actually be the complete opposite to clearly let you know the game saved and you are free to quit. As it was, I missed that it had saved twice, and each time it was 10-15 minutes past that point when I tried to quit so I kept playing the extra 10-15 minutes to get to the next.

Even though I dislike it, I thought FTL hit a good balance between the two extremes with the autosave when quitting and this is what I would expect at the least from a game aimed at the masses. 

There is a difference between not being able to save/suspsend your progress and the "quick save before each door" style of thing, I'd hope... 

what are we moaning about here? The lack of a "save anywhere" quicksave in Bioshock Infinite? (I've never played that game). 

i can play a game without quick saving, as long as progress is saved when i quit.
this is why i was saying FTL works well because you can't save during play and reload if you die, but when you leave the game, it saves your progress and you can do that at any time. there's nothing forcing you to continue playing (other than that you want to of course).

bioshock has nothing. if you quit you lose all progress from the last checkpoint you hit which may or may not be a while ago.

to be clear, i'm not overly angry about it, but it does have the odd effect of making me not want to play because i know i might not have enough to make any progress. 

I agree that being able to save before every door feels a bit like cheating. (I do it all the time regardless)

Maybe saving should be integral to the game's design rather than something that gets tacked on to let the player quit anytime he/she wants?

I think the ideal system might be to not have manual saves at all but just have the game save automatically after each 'challenge' bit. On higher difficulties the saves should be less frequent etc.

The game wouldn't let you load individual saves but have a tree of playthroughs. You could start a 'new game' in each branch of the tree, similar to selecting a chapter in HL2 for example, just with more levels of granularity.

Oh, and I haven't played Bioshock. 

bioshock has nothing. if you quit you lose all progress from the last checkpoint you hit which may or may not be a while ago.

But that's how all checkpoint games work, right? If you don't reach a new checkpoint before quitting, well...tough titty? 

 

Yeah, if that's the way it works, and checkpoints are too far apart I agree it's shit design. 

Checkpoints were indeed too far apart in BInf. Partly this is because the nature of the game encouraged certain player types (me) to squirrel around for a while within a given area, exploring and looking for consumables to hoover up.

To add insult to injury, that's the only game I've had technical issues with... it was a random crasher.

I'm still glad I worked my way through it, but at least having a save-on quit option would have been great. 

(P.S. obviously not the only game I've EVER had issues with, but the only one on my current game system that I've had for several years now. Frustrating.)