For the Metroidvania genre, it became common to the point of feeling like it's became standard with the release of Hollow Knight. Though it's possible it could be traced back to the likes of Demon Souls (which I haven't played).

I remember Ultima 3 doing this, and I believe it was one of the most disliked features of that game. The "Upgrade Patch" for that game allows the option to disable it. (Though that auto-save does allow for an exploit to get a ship without relying on RNG. Then again, Hollow Knight's handling of death is exploitable; a late game area can be reached early by pogo-ing off the shade that appears when you die in a specific spot.)

Sure... but are you really going to devote your time play a worse game than some other competing titles because of empathy? Even if you were to do so, is that fair to other small indie teams? "Sorry guys, I know you made a 10/10 game, but there's like 4 of you!" Hell, there are many fantastic solo dev games out there. Is it fair to the guys who made Braid

>looks at your country< Yeah, I'm not even gonna touch that :D

On the other hand the one man dev has total creative control. And what about empathy for the devs who worked their asses off in good faith on a mismanaged project and who are going to be the first ones fired?

Look, I absolutely get the idea of cutting the little guy some slack, and of enjoying stuff that's flawed, maybe even deeply flawed, but hits just the right spot for you (hell, I spent yesterday evening re-watching Kull the Conqueror :D). I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate here, because while emotionally I totally get the "empathy argument", I'm just not sure if it's actually fair. Nor am I convinced that the bar for small or even solo devs is a low set one.

If you're incapable of doing any of these, then there's no point in giving extra explanations on why you'd also not do one of these even if you wanted to, unless it's intentionally to make a statement and start some arguments.

It absolutely makes sense that if he can't make checkpoints, he also can't make saves (since checkpoints are essentially saves with potentially more limitations and less requirements). But, again, explaining that's not practical would have been enough. "I'm not technically capable at this point of making a checkpoint or save system" is fine as far as it goes. But "I'm not technically capable at this point of making a checkpoint or save system, and also I wouldn't make quicksaves because I don't trust players to save only where I think they should" is no different, in terms of discussions of the opinions and positions, of just "I wouldn't make quicksaves because I don't trust players to save only where I think they should".

Game looks very nice, but then... >dev: quicksaves are le cheaty save scumming
And yet another promising game i'll get at deeper discount because "saves make the game easy/saves are too difficult to implement.

It's called saving and there's nothing wrong with it. Not everyone wants to bang their head against the wall because they have to replay something over and over, and sometimes one doesn't have enough time to finish an entire level.

But you like to register over and over again. :D

Maybe it's a sign I like trauma and frustration and should buy this one anyways?