Ranarama
Learned
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 604
You picked the wrong options in this thread. Bet you wish you could reload an old save now, retard.
It's more convenient sure, but not worth the price. It makes large chunks of the intended challenge irrelevant. And I can tell the challenge is intended because they wouldn't have left those consequences in if they expected everyone to just reload when they are effected by them. It really messes with the immersion of a game as well, because I am pushed into meta-gaming. The "pro-move" if you get a suboptimal outcome is to reroll, even if that is not a natural way of playing the game. Or you could play nice with the developer and take it on the chin, but usually that feels like self-flagellation. Either way I am taken out of the experience.If you sincerely believe that sacrificing software flexibility that is the concept of save on demand is worth it due to your personal views on fun, then you have very little reasonable ideas to share probably on a much wider array of topics
It's a non-issue, a phantom Codexers conjured to lose in fight against it - there is nothing wrong in quicksaves, they were never wrong in the first place, a quicksave free system makes no sense in 2020
"Hurr durr restarting is fun"
No.
I get the feeling that you'd be against having a cheat mode enabled by default though.My take is that nothing stops an individual from self-imposing their own difficulty standards on a game (i.e. no save-scumming). But their own lack of will prevents them from not "cheating" as they see it, so they demand that the rules be forced on them to make up for their own (perceived) lack of character.
"Hurr durr restarting is fun"
No.
why restarting?
I can always go back to my last quicksave
people always whine and moan about C&C
As if roguelikes are immunes to such designs.The problem is that when you design a game around the assumption that everyone will savescum and only masochists won't, you get retarded shit like the consequences for failing a lockpicking or pickpocket check being an entire town fighting you to the death. Because hey, you can just reload! Hey, lets put in a dialogue where the player has no hints and has a 50/50 chance to just die, you can just reload
As if you know jack shit about roguelikes.As if roguelikes are immunes to such designs.The problem is that when you design a game around the assumption that everyone will savescum and only masochists won't, you get retarded shit like the consequences for failing a lockpicking or pickpocket check being an entire town fighting you to the death. Because hey, you can just reload! Hey, lets put in a dialogue where the player has no hints and has a 50/50 chance to just die, you can just reload
My take is that nothing stops an individual from self-imposing their own difficulty standards on a game (i.e. no save-scumming). But their own lack of will prevents them from not "cheating" as they see it, so they demand that the rules be forced on them to make up for their own (perceived) lack of character.
There’s a difference between failing and failing with “lolol now go play teh last two hours over!”. Replaying content because the game lacks basic quality of life features isn’t hardcore or cool. It just sucks.
I even reject the assumption that having to start over when your character dies makes a game more difficult. It is time consuming but that’s not the same thing as difficult. You’re restarting with a bunch of meta knowledge and can avoid sub optimal choices you made the first time. How is that more difficult than reloading and trying to beat the game with the same flawed character that just got wrecked?
Arguing that losing progress is nothing but a waste of time is what can't be logically defended. Are all competitive games wasting your time because the other team can score points as well? If you think Starcraft is better if you save and reload whenever you make a shit decision, why not apply that to multiplayer too? Why not just make all your shit invincible so you never have to 'waste time' by not winning your first and last attempt?
My problem with the appeal to the adrenaline of high stakes is that it's only fun if you actually succeed. So the game must be ultimately easy, but masquerading as challenging to make you feel good. I seriously doubt Dark Souls would become as popular if it had permadeath.I don't see the need to get bogged down with the theory of it. You can just imagine playing a game and spotting an intimidating monster or a foreboding entrance to a dungeon. With unlimited saves you won't be anywhere near as apprehensive, because you can reload at any time. With a limited saving system, you'll be weighing your options and paying attention to clues that could suggest the difficulty level of a particular encounter or location, because it's essential to be aware of these things in order to make progress. Save anywhere is anathema to this way of playing and completely changes the way the game makes you feel when you're faced with these decisions. I'm not saying that limited saving is the only way of doing things, but I personally love that feeling, so the risk of going an entire session without making any progress is a price I'm willing to pay.
Off the top of my head I can't remember a single game that would allow saving between turns. And the solution to savescumming loot is not having generated loot in the first place.Basically to avoid situations like reload chest on loot generation or save in between turns
make it deterministic and save scumming will disappear
Imagine having to start from Irenicus' dungeon again because your character died in the final boss fight of Throne of Bhaal. That's 80 hours of progress gone, wiped away. Do you have the motivation to start over yet again? Yes, the game does offer different choices at various points of the story, and a lot of the content is optional, but...
I would say it's fun until you get a game over, which is very different. But even when I do lose in this type of game, I don't feel like the fun I had before is invalidated.My problem with the appeal to the adrenaline of high stakes is that it's only fun if you actually succeed.
Dark Souls is a 50+ hour, mostly linear game with no random elements whatsoever. Making a game like that permadeath is a ludicrous idea. I didn't have permadeath in mind anyway, but rather limited/checkpoint saves.I seriously doubt Dark Souls would become as popular if it had permadeath.
Off the top of my head I can't remember a single game that would allow saving between turns. And the solution to savescumming loot is not having generated loot in the first place.
I'm honestly surprised at how much difficulty you're having understanding that the game would be designed differently if it had a different save system.Additionaly, in a game with ending slides - let's take Arcanum as an example - you can make different decisions on your second playthrough to keep it fresh, but you will always be left wondering what endings your original choices would have led to. You're not gonna find out unless you re-play the game from scratch, make the exact same choices again, and this time take care not to die (if you die, too bad, gotta start over from scratch again!)