Savegame limitations?

[mondblut]

you can make the same argument about cheats
you can have all the fun you want by enabling save cheats in the console menu

And?

 

[mondblut]

Lemme do dumb shit and have some fun.

Having fun ist verboten. You must consoom Carefully Curated Experience in an orderly fashion.

 

[Pentium]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

e.g. - means example, not an actual suggestion, dumbass. But ok, just leave it completely C&C and eat your own shit you make. Kill a quest giver and start over. Be smarter than that and have success, eh? Or let there be another solution, doesn't matter. Anyway proper measures for a severe C&C system would have to be taken, that's for sure. It's not like you have to ba allowed to slaughter any nonhostile NPC in the game, it's pretty common stuff in any game (how do you kill Gheed in D2?). You're just coming up with bs arguments based on the fact you like to mess around in games.

Also I'm not saying save limitations have to be mandatory for ALL RPGs, but at least for a subset it is a very fine way to enforce C&C.

 

[mondblut]

But ok, just leave it completely C&C and eat your own shit you make. Kill a quest giver and start over.

Or reload and smile thinking of ironcucks and their impotent raeg.

I bet you wear a mask, lol.

 

[anvi]

I disagree that you should always give the players what they want. There are a million examples of games that are deliberately hard or frustrating in some way and it mostly makes the player want to try to overcome it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

how is being able to magically reset time a better idea?
if you're dumb enough to start randomly attack the main quest NPC maybe you deserve to live in the doomed world you've created

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I would be surprised if any game has savegames in 10 years.

Exactly. Maybe saving will be bound to microtransactions or online services like "pay to continue". And fanatic religious are still arguing against "savescumming" as the reason of decline in gaming and want to limit saving.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I would be surprised if any game has savegames in 10 years.

Exactly. Maybe saving will be bound to microtransactions or online services like "pay to continue". And fanatic religious are still arguing against "savescumming" as the reason of decline in gaming and want to limit saving.

except it's the other way around, pay2cheat is a common occurrence in singleplayer games already

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I would be surprised if any game has savegames in 10 years.

Exactly. Maybe saving will be bound to microtransactions or online services like "pay to continue". And fanatic religious are still arguing against "savescumming" as the reason of decline in gaming and want to limit saving.

except it's the other way around, pay2cheat is a common occurrence in singleplayer games already

I see you are well informed about how to cheat games.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I would be surprised if any game has savegames in 10 years.

Exactly. Maybe saving will be bound to microtransactions or online services like "pay to continue". And fanatic religious are still arguing against "savescumming" as the reason of decline in gaming and want to limit saving.

except it's the other way around, pay2cheat is a common occurrence in singleplayer games already

I see you are well informed about how to cheat games.

I've played a game made in the past 10 years and seen the big blinking lights on the main menu telling me to buy superpoints for in-game rewards, yes.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I would be surprised if any game has savegames in 10 years.

Exactly. Maybe saving will be bound to microtransactions or online services like "pay to continue". And fanatic religious are still arguing against "savescumming" as the reason of decline in gaming and want to limit saving.

except it's the other way around, pay2cheat is a common occurrence in singleplayer games already

Except save != cheating.

 

[Harthwain]

Save limitations are retarded, just add in an optional ironman mode like Battle Brothers or Mount and Blade, that only allow you to save when you exit. Everyone else can use normal save everywhere instead.

If you now try to argue "but then most normal people would savescum, and we have to protect them from savescumming!" you're the same kind of retard who argues for a quest compass because otherwise some people might miss content.

Save limitations can have their place in gaming. They can function as a limited resource. The question then becomes: "Do I save now or try to go a bit further?". Because if you save too often, you risk running out of saves, meaning your progress is at risk until you find another save (or a safe zone, where you can always save, without having to lose resources). On the other hand, saving too sparsely means you risk losing more progress should something go wrong. It creates tension and you are more cautious as a result, thus mimicking - to some degree - the fear of death in the player, without wiping out his entire run.

When those systems were created, they didn't expect you to savescum. That's why I mentioned the OHKO spells earlier. They were included because they are a fun mechanic, and the possibility of morons to ruin their fun by savescumming 1000 times to bypass every boss encounter, didn't occur to the devs back then, because why the fuck would anyone do this?

How are OHKO spells a "fun mechanic"? To me they are similar to undetectable lethal traps. Both force you to reload.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

how is being able to magically reset time a better idea?
if you're dumb enough to start randomly attack the main quest NPC maybe you deserve to live in the doomed world you've created

Yeah ok, keep playing your games on optional ironman then and have fun. Meanwhile let me have my fun doing dumb stuff occasionally and then reloading to continue my normal playthrough.

Why should a game force me to restart from the beginning, play all the way to the point I currently am at with my "serious" character, and then kill the questgiver in my new playthrough (that now is forever doomed) just because I wanted to see what happens?
With save and reload, I can just do it right now without boring repetition of all the earlier content required.
I often make saves before divergent points, play through one path, and then after I finished the game I reload that point and try out the other path.

Free saving and reloading means the game respects my time and allows me to return to whatever place in the playthrough I want, at any time.
And the best part about it is, the existence of such a system doesn't force you to use it. You don't ever have to reload. You can even manually delete your save after your character dies, to simulate ironman.

Imagine playing a genre like Immersive Sims with restrictive saves lol. Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc. These games live from the possibility of trying stupid shit, playing around with the game's systems and the environment, etc. Making a save at the start of the level so you can replay that particular level whenever you want, rather than having to start a wholly new playthrough, is part of the genre's appeal.

People who want to push for restrictive savegame systems basically want to tell others what the RIGHT WAY to play a game is, and that no other way is valid.
Fuck off.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

how is being able to magically reset time a better idea?
if you're dumb enough to start randomly attack the main quest NPC maybe you deserve to live in the doomed world you've created

Yeah ok, keep playing your games on optional ironman then and have fun. Meanwhile let me have my fun doing dumb stuff occasionally and then reloading to continue my normal playthrough.

Why should a game force me to restart from the beginning, play all the way to the point I currently am at with my "serious" character, and then kill the questgiver in my new playthrough (that now is forever doomed) just because I wanted to see what happens?
With save and reload, I can just do it right now without boring repetition of all the earlier content required.
I often make saves before divergent points, play through one path, and then after I finished the game I reload that point and try out the other path.

Free saving and reloading means the game respects my time and allows me to return to whatever place in the playthrough I want, at any time.
And the best part about it is, the existence of such a system doesn't force you to use it. You don't ever have to reload. You can even manually delete your save after your character dies, to simulate ironman.

Imagine playing a genre like Immersive Sims with restrictive saves lol. Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc. These games live from the possibility of trying stupid shit, playing around with the game's systems and the environment, etc. Making a save at the start of the level so you can replay that particular level whenever you want, rather than having to start a wholly new playthrough, is part of the genre's appeal.

People who want to push for restrictive savegame systems basically want to tell others what the RIGHT WAY to play a game is, and that no other way is valid.
Fuck off.

here is your argument in picture form

 

[JarlFrank]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

how is being able to magically reset time a better idea?
if you're dumb enough to start randomly attack the main quest NPC maybe you deserve to live in the doomed world you've created

Yeah ok, keep playing your games on optional ironman then and have fun. Meanwhile let me have my fun doing dumb stuff occasionally and then reloading to continue my normal playthrough.

Why should a game force me to restart from the beginning, play all the way to the point I currently am at with my "serious" character, and then kill the questgiver in my new playthrough (that now is forever doomed) just because I wanted to see what happens?
With save and reload, I can just do it right now without boring repetition of all the earlier content required.
I often make saves before divergent points, play through one path, and then after I finished the game I reload that point and try out the other path.

Free saving and reloading means the game respects my time and allows me to return to whatever place in the playthrough I want, at any time.
And the best part about it is, the existence of such a system doesn't force you to use it. You don't ever have to reload. You can even manually delete your save after your character dies, to simulate ironman.

Imagine playing a genre like Immersive Sims with restrictive saves lol. Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc. These games live from the possibility of trying stupid shit, playing around with the game's systems and the environment, etc. Making a save at the start of the level so you can replay that particular level whenever you want, rather than having to start a wholly new playthrough, is part of the genre's appeal.

People who want to push for restrictive savegame systems basically want to tell others what the RIGHT WAY to play a game is, and that no other way is valid.
Fuck off.

here is your argument in picture form

One is a single player game, the other is multiplayer.

False equivalency.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Well yeah, that's sort of the point of C&C. You don't mess around and do stupid bs like killing your quest givers.

But why would you argue what may happen if you just ADD limitations into an existing title? SHOULD a game have some than it needs to be generally adjusted for it (e.g. making quest givers invincible for fucks with stupid ideas).

So you are advocating for the greater decline of invincible questgivers, in order to prevent the completely optional sin of savescumming which can just be avoided by having a strong will and just not hitting that quickload button.

Get a load of this idiot! Holy shit.

We must protect people from ruining their own game by savescumming! But then we must also protect them from entering an unwinnable state by doing stupid shit! Most retarded argument I've ever read on the Codex, and I've been here for over a decade.

how is being able to magically reset time a better idea?
if you're dumb enough to start randomly attack the main quest NPC maybe you deserve to live in the doomed world you've created

Yeah ok, keep playing your games on optional ironman then and have fun. Meanwhile let me have my fun doing dumb stuff occasionally and then reloading to continue my normal playthrough.

Why should a game force me to restart from the beginning, play all the way to the point I currently am at with my "serious" character, and then kill the questgiver in my new playthrough (that now is forever doomed) just because I wanted to see what happens?
With save and reload, I can just do it right now without boring repetition of all the earlier content required.
I often make saves before divergent points, play through one path, and then after I finished the game I reload that point and try out the other path.

Free saving and reloading means the game respects my time and allows me to return to whatever place in the playthrough I want, at any time.
And the best part about it is, the existence of such a system doesn't force you to use it. You don't ever have to reload. You can even manually delete your save after your character dies, to simulate ironman.

Imagine playing a genre like Immersive Sims with restrictive saves lol. Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc. These games live from the possibility of trying stupid shit, playing around with the game's systems and the environment, etc. Making a save at the start of the level so you can replay that particular level whenever you want, rather than having to start a wholly new playthrough, is part of the genre's appeal.

People who want to push for restrictive savegame systems basically want to tell others what the RIGHT WAY to play a game is, and that no other way is valid.
Fuck off.

here is your argument in picture form

One is a single player game, the other is multiplayer.

False equivalency.

maybe you could git gud instead of cheating and causing games to constantly decline due to designers having to design games around you cheating

 

[JarlFrank]

I explained what I use saving and reloading for, you keep calling it cheating.

I guess I'll just have to go with fantadomat on this one and call you a retarded American.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I explained what I use saving and reloading for, you keep calling it cheating.

I guess I'll just have to go with fantadomat on this one and call you a retarded American.

you want to cheat and not have to experience the consequences of your choices when you find out you don't like the consequences
why not just play something other than RPGs if you don't actually like RPGs?

I notice there's a massive overlap of people who think disco communism is an RPG(it's not) and people who want to cheat in RPGs

 

[JarlFrank]

you want to cheat and not have to experience the consequences of your choices when you find out you don't like the consequences

No you idiot. I want to perform an action where I know I won't like the consequences, but it would be funny to do that.
That's why I save, do the funny thing, then reload.
I already know before performing the action that I will reload. I just do it for fun, because sometimes being stupid on purpose is entertaining.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you want to cheat and not have to experience the consequences of your choices when you find out you don't like the consequences

No you idiot. I want to perform an action where I know I won't like the consequences, but it would be funny to do that.
That's why I save, do the funny thing, then reload.
I already know before performing the action that I will reload. I just do it for fun, because sometimes being stupid on purpose is entertaining.

You want choices without consequences.
Can't imagine why RPGs are in decline.

 

[Peachcurl]

That's cheating, JarlFrank. You are breaking the rules to gain an advantage: fun. Please stop having fun, it's not fair.







But seriously, I need no savegame limitations. If someone wants to exploit it: go ahead, doesn't bother me. I'd rather have a save-guard against incompetence and carelessness in the games I play. My own as well as the devs. :D

 

[rusty_shackleford]

That's cheating, JarlFrank. You are breaking the rules to gain an advantage: fun. Please stop having fun, it's not fair.







But seriously, I need no savegame limitations. If someone wants to exploit it: go ahead, doesn't bother me. I'd rather have a save-guard against incompetence and carelessness in the games I play. My own as well as the devs. :D

Again, would you be against designers putting a cheat menu front and center, actively encouraging its use, and designing the game around using it?

 

[Peachcurl]

If the game is designed around it, calling it a "cheat" menu is just wrong. But I'd appreciate the game designers trolling skills, I guess.

 

[Alphons]

Let players play the way they want.

Can't imagine why RPGs are in decline.

They're in decline because they no longer allow players to play the way they want.

"Thanks" to your design philosophy we have level-scaled loot, level-scaled enemies and meaningless stats because SOMEONE might get powerful too early and ruin HIS game.

Is Oblivion better than Morrowind, because they got rid of alchemy, spellcrafting and enchanting exploits or is it worse because they removed the option to experiment with the game and it's various tools?

Is Fallout 3 better than Fallout 1 because I'm forced to follow a lengthy MQ to get Power Armor training and the option to face the final antagonist or is it worse because I'm always forced to follow it?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Decline began when PC manual saves had been replaced with console checkpoints. There is a significant temporal correlation.