Shadowrun Shadowrun Returns Pre-Release Thread

[Gozma]

The posited system was "hard saves in town, save and quit outside." I.e. you can quit whenever you want, you just can't load whenever you want. Stopping play at any time is a given and should never come into these saving arguments.

Alright, so that out of the way, the other idea is that "HEY LET PEOPLE PLAY HOW THEY WANT FASCIST." The problem with that is that designers apparently won't design for ironman unless they're forced at gunpoint. The history of RPGs is loaded with spammed save-or-die spells, piles of buffs that you have to be insane to keep up in preparation for the "hard fight" that may never come... ironman design is difficult and "unnatural", quicksave design is easy and braindead. I'm for putting the gun to their head if that's what it takes.

I hold no-save-and-quit against Shadowrun as a missing feature, I don't necessarily hold no-free-reload against it.

 

[Excidium]

The whole genre of rogue-likes shows that save restrictions do make a difference.

The whole genre of rogue-likes shows that procedural generation of content does make a difference.

It never occurred to you that if a game's difficulty can be negated by spending 3 minutes reading a forum post then the problem might not be with the player? That people might find the AWESOME combination on their own?

Not before they even start to play the damn game. And a lot of the challenge, specially in older games, comes from having to figure shit on your own.

 

[almondblight]

The whole genre of rogue-likes shows that procedural generation of content does make a difference.

You'd probably want more randomness from enemies and traps.

Not before they even start to play the damn game. And a lot of the challenge, specially in older games, comes from having to figure shit on your own.

There's not a whole lot to figure out if difficulty is ruined by a "WHAT IS THE BEST PARTY COMPOSITION" forum post. And the answer to that only ruins difficulty is the game has terrible balance. But hey, we all hate balance, right?

 

[Damned Registrations]

It is stupid mechanic. Let people play as they wish. Nobody should care how a person chooses to play the game, it is really their decision. These types of mechanics are pointless.

Indeed. I also demand they add in invincibility, infinite cash, an in game quest compass and walkthrough, and reduce all enemy stats to 1. They'll be optional so nobody has a right to complain about how I want to play the game. I'm sure design won't suffer at all from these additions.

Actually, lets just add those options in instead of the option to reload anywhere. They accomplish the same thing, and being able to reload a save from 1 minute ago after you died is redundant if you have the option to simply be unable to die.

 

[Excidium]

It is stupid mechanic. Let people play as they wish. Nobody should care how a person chooses to play the game, it is really their decision. These types of mechanics are pointless.

Indeed. I also demand they add in invincibility, infinite cash, an in game quest compass and walkthrough, and reduce all enemy stats to 1. They'll be optional so nobody has a right to complain about how I want to play the game. I'm sure design won't suffer at all from these additions.

Actually, lets just add those options in instead of the option to reload anywhere. They accomplish the same thing, and being able to reload a save from 1 minute ago after you died is redundant if you have the option to simply be unable to die.

You can do all that in any game. I wonder how you muster the willpower to resist editing the stats on all your characters if you can't even control yourself with your saves.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Oh indeed. So why do you need the ability to hard save anywhere? Just hack your stats so you never need to reload. Enjoy.

 

[Excidium]

Go be a retard somewhere else.

 

[Lancehead]

Restricting saving is backwards way of combating savescumming (is that even the reason in case of SRR, or is it a case of not enough money?), and defeats the whole point of "saving". Save-anywhere is a bare minimum of any save system that wants to consider itself adequate.

 

[Cromwell]

Restricting saving is backwards way of combating savescumming (is that even the reason in case of SRR, or is it a case of not enough money?), and defeats the whole point of "saving". Save-anywhere is a bare minimum of any save system that wants to consider itself adequate.

so the whole oint is not save your game at a point come back later, it is and ever was save your game whenever you want whyever you want? Why is it such a big issue to not be able to save anywhere, does it dumb down the game, does it destroy some design mechanics, why is it? I mean aside from "BECAUSE I FUCKING WANT TO SAVE NOW AND I HAVE PAID!"

 

[Roguey]

(is that even the reason in case of SRR, or is it a case of not enough money?)

It's purely budget/time reasons. They even said they wished they could support save-anywhere.

 

[Lancehead]

Restricting saving is backwards way of combating savescumming (is that even the reason in case of SRR, or is it a case of not enough money?), and defeats the whole point of "saving". Save-anywhere is a bare minimum of any save system that wants to consider itself adequate.

so the whole oint is not save your game at a point come back later, it is and ever was save your game whenever you want whyever you want? Why is it such a big issue to not be able to save anywhere, does it dumb down the game, does it destroy some design mechanics, why is it? I mean aside from "BECAUSE I FUCKING WANT TO SAVE NOW AND I HAVE PAID!"

Save/load are decidedly extraneous to the game whose purpose is, indeed, save and load your progress. They're there to aid the player, not to challenge or hold hostage. Use in-game mechanics for that.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Such as?

You can't add challenge to a game when the player knows your next move, unless the challenge is either a matter of execution (twitch based) or totally random (luck based). Cunning ambushes don't really work when the player can simply reload to 5 seconds ago and fling fireballs beyond their line of sight.

What you're asking for is combat that includes more random bullshit critical hits and save or die effects that destroy you regardless of planning or foresight.

Enjoyable challenges are ones that can be overcome with thoughtfulness, like a game of chess. Savescumming is a perfect substitute for thoughtfulness. Ergo, any game that relies on such challenges and includes the option to savescum will be panned as being devoid of challenge by the vast majority of players, most of whom won't even admit that they died the first time around. Then to top it off, these morons claim that such challenges are 'fake' because they are rendered trivial once you know whats coming. No shit! You're not supposed to know what's coming. You're supposed to be on equal terms with the opponent.

 

[Excidium]

The point is, savescumming is their choice. Because they're immature shits they need to be restrained I have to instantly replay the same fucking content I already cleared two hours ago when I could just load my last save and continue from the part before I died.

Sure, you can add some random elements to make the act of going through the same shit more interesting, but either it makes no difference or it's a lot of work just to invalidate some potential exploiting in a single player game.

 

[Lancehead]

Such as?

You can't add challenge to a game when the player knows your next move, unless the challenge is either a matter of execution (twitch based) or totally random (luck based). Cunning ambushes don't really work when the player can simply reload to 5 seconds ago and fling fireballs beyond their line of sight.

What you're asking for is combat that includes more random bullshit critical hits and save or die effects that destroy you regardless of planning or foresight.

Enjoyable challenges are ones that can be overcome with thoughtfulness, like a game of chess. Savescumming is a perfect substitute for thoughtfulness. Ergo, any game that relies on such challenges and includes the option to savescum will be panned as being devoid of challenge by the vast majority of players, most of whom won't even admit that they died the first time around. Then to top it off, these morons claim that such challenges are 'fake' because they are rendered trivial once you know whats coming. No shit! You're not supposed to know what's coming. You're supposed to be on equal terms with the opponent.

I'm not asking for extra randomness or whatever. Restricted saving may or may not deter those who savescum, but it sure as hell will annoy those who don't by making them go through content repeatedly for no good reason. I'm almost tempted to draw anti-piracy DRM analogy here.

 

[Xenich]

Such as?

You can't add challenge to a game when the player knows your next move, unless the challenge is either a matter of execution (twitch based) or totally random (luck based). Cunning ambushes don't really work when the player can simply reload to 5 seconds ago and fling fireballs beyond their line of sight.

What you're asking for is combat that includes more random bullshit critical hits and save or die effects that destroy you regardless of planning or foresight.

Enjoyable challenges are ones that can be overcome with thoughtfulness, like a game of chess. Savescumming is a perfect substitute for thoughtfulness. Ergo, any game that relies on such challenges and includes the option to savescum will be panned as being devoid of challenge by the vast majority of players, most of whom won't even admit that they died the first time around. Then to top it off, these morons claim that such challenges are 'fake' because they are rendered trivial once you know whats coming. No shit! You're not supposed to know what's coming. You're supposed to be on equal terms with the opponent.

I'm not asking for extra randomness or whatever. Restricted saving may or may not deter those who savescum, but it sure as hell will annoy those who don't by making them go through content repeatedly for no good reason. I'm almost tempted to draw anti-piracy DRM analogy here.

Exactly. I remember playing an older console port game a long time ago that had save points. My time was sporadic and I always had short play intervals and ended up playing a lot of content over and over and over. It was frustrating as hell as the content wasn't difficult, it was just tedious at certain points and I often missed the chance to get to the next save location before I had to shut down and leave. My solution was to download a save game hack which allowed me to save anywhere as I liked. Without that, I would have likely given up and tossed the thing into the trash.

I understand the complaints about people taking the easy path and getting past content with such tricks, but this isn't an MMO where you are indirectly or directly competing with others, its a single player game and while I really hated people who "cheated" content in those multiplayer games, in a single player game I really could care less if the idiots hack the game, go to the end and have "I WIN" spammed in the credits. I mean, how narcissistic do you have to be to demand someone play a frigging single player game as you think they should play it? What next? Are they going to ship the game with a security guard to keep me from using the CD as a coaster because... that is not it what it was intended to be used for?

 

[Xenich]

The point is, savescumming is their choice. Because they're immature shits they need to be restrained I have to instantly replay the same fucking content I already cleared two hours ago when I could just load my last save and continue from the part before I died.

Sure, you can add some random elements to make the act of going through the same shit more interesting, but either it makes no difference or it's a lot of work just to invalidate some potential exploiting in a single player game.

Random elements are good, but I see that as a "replay mechanic", not a means of keeping people from getting through the game easier. Those who wish to cheat... will cheat. In fact, I have seen some people spend more effort in attempting to cheat than it would take for them to simply play the game. Some actually play that way. Personally, I could care less how they play. It isn't like it is an MMO or something where their cheating can directly or indirectly effect me, so... if they want to, they can knock themselves out.

Off topic, but Space Rangers 2 handled "random elements" in their text quest portions of the game brilliantly. There was no consistent static solution. You had to apply a specific logical approach every time.

 

[Dickie]

It is stupid mechanic. Let people play as they wish. Nobody should care how a person chooses to play the game, it is really their decision. These types of mechanics are pointless.

Indeed. I also demand they add in invincibility, infinite cash, an in game quest compass and walkthrough, and reduce all enemy stats to 1. They'll be optional so nobody has a right to complain about how I want to play the game. I'm sure design won't suffer at all from these additions.

Actually, lets just add those options in instead of the option to reload anywhere. They accomplish the same thing, and being able to reload a save from 1 minute ago after you died is redundant if you have the option to simply be unable to die.

The options for infinite money and health exist in a lot of games via console commands. Does that ruin the entire game for you, really? I like how so many people here have to play the game the easiest way possible and then complain that the game is too easy. I use saves mostly as a defense against crashes and having to quit for whatever reason. I find games are more fun like that than if I save every two steps, so that's how I play. I really don't care if other people are having an easier time with the game.

 

[Gozma]

Save and quit is apparently forbidden ancient knowledge around here or something

 

[Damned Registrations]

It is stupid mechanic. Let people play as they wish. Nobody should care how a person chooses to play the game, it is really their decision. These types of mechanics are pointless.

Indeed. I also demand they add in invincibility, infinite cash, an in game quest compass and walkthrough, and reduce all enemy stats to 1. They'll be optional so nobody has a right to complain about how I want to play the game. I'm sure design won't suffer at all from these additions.

Actually, lets just add those options in instead of the option to reload anywhere. They accomplish the same thing, and being able to reload a save from 1 minute ago after you died is redundant if you have the option to simply be unable to die.

The options for infinite money and health exist in a lot of games via console commands. Does that ruin the entire game for you, really? I like how so many people here have to play the game the easiest way possible and then complain that the game is too easy. I use saves mostly as a defense against crashes and having to quit for whatever reason. I find games are more fun like that than if I save every two steps, so that's how I play. I really don't care if other people are having an easier time with the game.

Then add the option to save anywhere via a console command. Just make it fucking clear that it's not meant to be played that way, so when the fucking retards start bitching about the combat being too easy when they reloaded and bought all the right equipment for the fight, rested, and chose the correct dialogue choices EVERY FUCKING TIME, it's apparent that they're the fuckups playing the game wrong. Because the current situation is that anyone who doesn't spam saves and reload constantly is just seen to be larping hardcore mode and has no right to say anything about game balance, ever.

 

[almondblight]

The options for infinite money and health exist in a lot of games via console commands.

And what would you think about players who rage about them not being included in every single game?

 

[Lancehead]

Save and quit is apparently forbidden ancient knowledge around here or something

The usefulness of it depends on what your aim is. If it's to prevent people from savescumming, then perhaps it may serve as a deterrent. If the aim to actually make the game better, then it doesn't.

 

[Grunker]

Guys, I just had this revolutionary idea. What if... What IF, you enabled different modes, and allowed the player to choose?

I know, crazy, right?

 

[Roguey]

The obvious elegant solution here is that game designers should be more like Josh and recognize that savescumming is a response to a bad mechanic, and players aren't bad for using it but designers are bad for creating mechanics and content that encourage its use.

Instead of sticking their heads in the fucking sand.

 

[Kz3r0]

ITT we discover that consoles got it right all along.

 

[Eyeball]

Guys, I just had this revolutionary idea. What if... What IF, you enabled different modes, and allowed the player to choose?

I know, crazy, right?

Spectacular idea, old fellow. We'll implement that.

In the first day one DLC, of course.