Although I do agree that the session based games are great, I also think that no all games should accommodate all players. Like souls games are designed specifically to be ruthless towards the player. Almost any tempering with that design will likely to undermine it's core concept and antagonise its core players. So the people who for the reason that they have life and not ready to poor insane amount of time to git good have to accept that this games are just not for them and that's ok. Same goes for skill based platformers that I like. You can beat some early levels within rather short bursts but more advanced levels require countless of tries and if it isn't your thing or you can't make time for it you will likely come out of the experience disappointed. Beside that, there're of course many games that could've been improved by concepts described in the article. After all, even Dark Souls has a Save and Quit option even though it doesn't have any checkpoint systems beside designated spots anywhere else.
Sure, there are niches, like horror games, for example, which I'm not going to play bc I can simply open a newsfeed from Russia. Or some genres that clearly scream: "I want all your time in the world".
But I don't think these niches are really that large. I bet the skill-based platformers are cool, so why not let more people try and enjoy them, by making the checkpoint system more granular? And why do many other not-souls-like games still have a checkpoint system that could safely be replaced with something like regular saves (e.g., Pacific Drive)?
I like the way it's done in Death Stranding: you can't save near enemies, but that makes the game even more interesting; I have agency in deciding if I want to go all in or fall back and tackle the BTs on my next run.
Here’s some clever mechanics https://x.com/dbakaba/status/1773125777644486971?s=46
Although I do agree that the session based games are great, I also think that no all games should accommodate all players. Like souls games are designed specifically to be ruthless towards the player. Almost any tempering with that design will likely to undermine it's core concept and antagonise its core players. So the people who for the reason that they have life and not ready to poor insane amount of time to git good have to accept that this games are just not for them and that's ok. Same goes for skill based platformers that I like. You can beat some early levels within rather short bursts but more advanced levels require countless of tries and if it isn't your thing or you can't make time for it you will likely come out of the experience disappointed. Beside that, there're of course many games that could've been improved by concepts described in the article. After all, even Dark Souls has a Save and Quit option even though it doesn't have any checkpoint systems beside designated spots anywhere else.
Sure, there are niches, like horror games, for example, which I'm not going to play bc I can simply open a newsfeed from Russia. Or some genres that clearly scream: "I want all your time in the world".
But I don't think these niches are really that large. I bet the skill-based platformers are cool, so why not let more people try and enjoy them, by making the checkpoint system more granular? And why do many other not-souls-like games still have a checkpoint system that could safely be replaced with something like regular saves (e.g., Pacific Drive)?
I like the way it's done in Death Stranding: you can't save near enemies, but that makes the game even more interesting; I have agency in deciding if I want to go all in or fall back and tackle the BTs on my next run.