Savegame limitations?

[fantadomat]

just go read a book or something, it's clear you guys don't actually want to play a game that has coherent rules

WE set the rules.

I love how he keeps saying "Games aren't books!!" but then he opposes the idea that players can play how they want

Which is it? Player freedom or forcing players to play the RIGHT way?

I doubt that he even knows what books are,he just repeats some retarded kwan saying.

 

[Alter Sack]

I can't stand these save game limitations in some newer games.

Be it that you can only save at certain points or the limitation of slots you can save your game in.

Especially these rogue like games where you game is saved automatically in one slot and you can't load old saves anymore annoy me.

I like to try different approaches and load an old save if it didn't work out. That's not possible with a limited save function.

I mean why the fuck don't they allow me to play the game how I want to play it. If I enjoy a game more by facilitating save scumming I should be allowed to do it.

Sometimes I feel transported back to the past to my console days. There you also couldn't save most of the time, but it was mostly because of technical limitations.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

waaaah roguelikes wont let me savescum waaaah

Cry more, snowflake.

You do imitate kwans very well.......You are not a kwan,are you?!

You are even worse than a kwan, you are - may allah forgive me for uttering this word - a b*lgarian.

 

[fantadomat]

waaaah roguelikes wont let me savescum waaaah

Cry more, snowflake.

You do imitate kwans very well.......You are not a kwan,are you?!

You are even worse than a kwan, you are - may allah forgive me for uttering this word - a b*lgarian.

No,i am a Smug Bulgar .

 

[Alter Sack]

You are even worse than a kwan, you are - may allah forgive me for uttering this word - a b*lgarian.

Sand-nigger confirmed.

Edit: Do you feel addressed fantadomat?

That was actually directed at techno union.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

 

[Alter Sack]

No,i am a Smug Vulgar .

There, fixed it for you.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

You are even worse than a kwan, you are - may allah forgive me for uttering this word - a b*lgarian.

Sand-nigger confirmed.

Edit: Do you feel addressed fantadomat?

That was actually directed at techno union.

Memelore check: failed.

 

[fantadomat]

No,i am a Smug Vulgar .

There, fixed it for you.

Your insults are very....german. No wonder your wifus prefer arabs.

 

[Spukrian]

I like to be able to save whenever I want. When I was younger I always savescummed, but now when I'm older I usually forget to save and then die and lose a lot of progress. So I guess it evens out.

I do enjoy a lot of games that restrict saving though!

 

[Alter Sack]

No,i am a Smug Vulgar .

There, fixed it for you.

Your insults are very....german. No wonder your wifus prefer arabs.

Thanks. Your insults are very...turkish.

 

[Stavrophore]

I think save anywhere is important because I can't list the number of times I've had to leave a game in a hurry whether due to kids or some form of emergency. Just the other day I had to alt-F4 out of combat in order to rush to the hospital. On top of whatever crisis I'm dealing with, I don't also want to have to replay from some hours ago checkpoint. That tends to just make me put a game down and never get back to it.

Bro change your power button setting in windows to sleep. Bam you push PC power button and your PC goes to sleep. It takes maybe few watts to power in that state, and save all your work.

 

[Pentium]

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.

That's actually a fair suggestion IF it's available as an option.

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.

Just more bullshit. Enforcing C&C dosen't mean to tell you how to play, quite the contrary - it assumes there's not only one way to play otherwise such restrictions would make no sense (it might give you the hint that messing around in a game is not valid gameplay tho).


I was trying to make some fair points in this thread but you just crawl in here like a pregnant bitch, distorting my posts, nitpicking on unsubstantial details and start whining I'M SOOO GAAAAY I WANT TO KILL MY QUEST GIVER BOOHOOHOO I WANT NO JEWISH CONSPIRACY TO TELL ME HOW TO GEIM RITE

Go screw your nazi momma, you might even get lucky and father a baboon

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

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.

That is exactly correct, and video games must be developed around the right way (no save-scumming), and not around the wrong way, with a poorly-tested "oPtiOnAl iRoNmAn" thrown in as an afterthought. Provided you want them to be worth playing, and not shit that panders to casuals.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Ironman is time-intensive autism, if you want to be that kind of hardcore, there's always multiplayer games. In which you don't lose progress, aren't just playing vs AI, and have a ranking system that adjusts difficulty pretty perfectly.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

codex reacting to being told to beat a game without cheating

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

Ironman is time-intensive autism

Mostly because in 90% of games that have some sort of optional ironman mode, the game wasn't actually designed around this mode, making it an unbalanced and untested hassle for autists.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

An alternative to "ironman" is having save-slots as a limited in-game resource, a la Resident Evil 1 (I think VTM: Redemption also used that system).

You found 4 savegame items in the previous room, use them however you wish. Just don't have a spazz attack if you run out in 10 minutes because you save before every single dialogue to select every possible option and then go with whichever one gives the most loot/influence.

Less is more.

 

[fantadomat]

 

[DoctorLogi]

I guess it depends on the game. I like it when games work the save function into the game setting like going to an INN or something like that.
Savescumming is just lite cheating and you can't really stop players from cheating if they want to in a singleplayer game.
I think a more important thing to consider is the state of the game which leads to a player reload.
A situation which comes to mind is an unavoidable death or an unfair puzzle where you move the pieces into a wall corner and can't continue.
To me this is just a player dealing with poor game design with a work around.

 

[Alphons]

The right way to play is my way.

 

[Azdul]

If people want to play in a way that designer not intended - it's because intended way is too burdensome due to lazy design:

• Activate trap - get killed - reload - detect traps.
• Choose one response in dialog - get completely unexpected bad outcome - reload - choose different response.
• Start combat - enemy is too hard - reload - prebuff - start combat again.
• Open treasure chest - get random crappy loot - reload - get desired item.

Player should be able to save whenever he wants - but:

• Random seed should be preserved in the save.
• 'Bad' outcomes should have some upside.
• 'Good' outcomes should have some downside.
• Some downsides / upsides should be revealed much later on.

That way savescumming is no longer a problem.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If people want to play in a way that designer not intended - it's because intended way is too burdensome due to lazy design:

• Activate trap - get killed - reload - detect traps.
• Choose one response in dialog - get completely unexpected bad outcome - reload - choose different response.
• Start combat - enemy is too hard - reload - prebuff - start combat again.
• Open treasure chest - get random crappy loot - reload - get desired item.

Player should be able to save whenever he wants - but:

• Random seed should be preserved in the save.
• 'Bad' outcomes should have some upside.
• 'Good' outcomes should have some downside.
• Some downsides / upsides should be revealed much later on.

That way savescumming is no longer a problem.

players will continue cheating as long as the cheats are put infront of them, attempting to take the cheats away will result in a childlike temper tantrum(check this thread)

 

[otsego]

Having recently started Kingdom Come Deliverance, and otherwise self-imposing rules when I replay older RPGs, I appreciate things devs do to prevent save-scumming (KCD save potions) but I think it's the wrong approach. There's nothing more frustrating than wanting to try something different from your playstyle (for example stealing or murdering) and being punished for not being allowed to save prior to doing so. Or carrying out a long series of events within a game only to fail a check or die to a tough encounter and having to redo all of that stuff.

Games are about having fun. If scumming for a better outcome is what you want, let the player do it. Solve the issue by having unique loot and not randomized garbage, and let the player choose to either fuck up and stay fucked up, or reload and not fuck up.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Games are about having fun

then use cheat engine
this same exact argument can be used to include any stupid shit in a game that someone happens to find "fun"