Will someone explain to me what reward there is in playing the same section of a game over and over again in order to get to that one part you keep dying at in the hopes that you can beat it this time and continue on with the fucking game you just paid $60 for and your wife is yelling at you that and you've been playing the same bit for the last hour or two and she's tired of listening to it, and anyway it's time to get ready for dinner, and why do you always play that game it puts you in a bad mood and is a waste of time you could be spending doing chores around the house or some misc activity together?
Seriously, why are you focusing on the game instead of something in the real world, particularly with a wife involved? If the game is getting to you, pack it in and come back another day. Not the end of the world in the slightest. At the end of the day, games don't matter enough to get furious with.
Actual real life occurrences. It's not fun to not be able to save before something big happens and have to repeat gameplay. Here's an example of something innocuous... yet not: In Red Steel 2 there's fairly frequent checkpoints, except for example there was one section where I died repeatedly and every time I restarted back at the checkpoint I had to collect all of the loot in the room and press a switch for the next area. After the 3rd time I swear I wanted to throw the controller.
Not. Fun.
And someone explain to me how not being able to save will decrease suspense? Because apparently it will be more suspenseful the next time you repeat the last 10 minutes!
This is an issue of areas with bullshit difficulty, not being unable to to quicksave anywhere.
Look at it like this: currently, devs can use the save system as part of the presentation of the game. If all games had to use the exact same system, then devs would no longer be able to make certain design decisions. They recognize it would be pointless to waste effort on certain sections when they know the majority of people who pick up the game will just quicksave their way through and obliterate any real challenge to the game.
And again, only certain games really benefit from limited saves. If it's truly so mind-rapingly horrifying to face the loss of whole minutes of progress to take care of something which actually matters, then don't play those games.
And someone explain to me how not being able to save will decrease suspense? Because apparently it will be more suspenseful the next time you repeat the last 10 minutes!
I don't understand how someone could not understand this.
Whoa, this village is spooky...crap, they saw me! Die die die! Oh god, I'm out of ammo, and that lady got a few hits in...was that the sound of a chainsaw?! Ducking into this house...oh man, some much needed ammo and an herb. Shoot, they're coming through! Maybe I'll have time to take this herb upstaiAAAAHH chainsaw man! Back down, maybe I can get out the door again...oh my god, so many ganados...
vs.
Lots of ganados milling around in this village...F5. Whoops, that guy noticed me and yelled. F8, I'll be sneaky this time. Got into a shack, F5. Gathering ammo from various objects...whoops, took too long and guys are breaking in. F8. There, now I have enough ammo and the door's still barred. F5. Oh no, a chainsaw guy is upstairs! F8. This time I'll stand at the base of the steps and kill him. Aw, he got me, F8. There, killed him this time. F5.
Which is more suspenseful? Be honest with yourself. Would you really feel the same sense of urgency?
Or how about this:
Oh crap, I'm so close to five starring Dragonforce on Expert...I've practiced this song for so long...50 notes left, if I can just keep it together until then....
vs.
Whoops, missed a note. F8. Did it again. F8. Whew, beat that section, F5...
Alright, this'll be a big one. I've tried to cut down quotes/quote trees to the revelant bits, sorry if anyone feels I ignored important stuff or minimized their arguments.
I'd like to start of by making the point I feel my argument is superior, if for only one reason, in that its inclusive. The no-to-save arguments are all very exclusionary and telling me how I should enjoy the game, where as I'm demanding options, increasing and allowing for more.
I'll also put down for the record, I have not played any game in recent memory that was made more challenging by checkpoint systems. It simply doesn't make it harder, nor does it add a feeling of accomplishment for me when I get past some annoying QTE because it was too vague to understand the symbols. Clive Barker's Jericho, guys. Stop trying to tell me that thing was better for its checkpoints.
And without further ado, I bring you my incoherent argumentative abilities:
Conversely, if you can't handle the idea of actually having risk in a game because you can't save every minute or two, that's your problem and I don't think all of my games should have to get crutches for that. Blood Money was focused on a being a tense, story-driven game of assassination, not a sandbox game about funny ways to kill people. For this intent the given save system, aside from the clear-on-quit nonsense, was perfectly acceptable. Yeah, it could've been better, but while killing people in a clown suit is all good fun, it isn't what brings me back to the game so I couldn't care less if I can't keep a perfect Killer Klown save hanging around. Blood Money could've done just fine with a mode which didn't "count" for anything (like advancing to the next level) but let you save wherever and whenever you want and keep a stack of saves, but of the two options I'm glad that it went with limited saves over unlimited ones forever.
Take an extreme example like I Wanna Be The Guy. If you could quicksave anywhere, beating the game would be meaningless. Places which should be nightmarish would be breeze. I argue that, like IWBTG, some games are objectively better if people can't effectively cheat their way through each and every difficult situation. I posit that Dead Space was one of these since the game relied hugely on atmosphere, particularly the atmosphere of imminent death. Given the option, a person is going to quicksave constantly simply out of human nature. Removing the option means they have to confront the tension rather than kill it by quicksaving every ten feet. It's perfectly understandable to not like it that way, but it's a superior way to present the game.
I just think it's not a great idea to assume that what would work well for many games would work well for all of them. I've played all sorts of games on all sorts of PC setups and consoles and think that there are certainly times when a limited save system is a much better choice for a given game. I certainly wish it was present in something like Just Cause 2 so I could more easily do crazy things, but that's only one variety of game.
Blood Money is a very bad example. As we've both said, it was piss easy. So we have an issue at hand, because Blood Money was made poorer for that fact. Granted, I do replay the Hitman games for the perfect hit, I also replay them for the goofs. This is Hitman tradition. Lots of players do exactly this, its just a part of the series.
This is where I'll find myself conceding a small bit, with IWBTG. Never played it, and as said, I don't play consoles, meaning I don't bother with platformers. I know IWBTG is PC, but it is a platformer. Anyways, my understanding was that IWBTG was an intentional throwback, intended to piss off its players, but be a non-serious game, so the deaths were good fun. Key word is throwback, though. It was meant to be from a time that, frankly, shouldn't be a paragon of saves.
I just like games that have both checkpoints and quicksaves. Having just played through Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, it's astoundingly convenient to have the game pace itself through frequent checkpoints but also have the ability to save midway through a tricky section or just prior to quitting. This whole 'I can't resist the temptation to use something that I know will make the game less fun for me' attitude is baffling, personally.
I'll also add this - checkpoints are far more tolerable in genuinely good games. A situation where the core mechanics are just fun to play around with (such as Mario Galaxy) or where dying is frequently hilarious and encourages strategic thinking (such as Resident Evil 4) means that replaying small sections is no great chore - although much longer than this and even they risk becoming tiresome. Most games, however, just don't hold up well to this - much like the average book or film, seeing something for the third or fifteenth time is just immensely boring. I can't count the number of games where I've hit a difficulty roadblock of some kind, gotten bored and given up - a quicksave would frequently make these situations avoidable.
So are quicksaves just a crutch for lazy design? Often, yes. A perfectly structured and paced game would place checkpoints very frequently after each 'beat' in the game's flow, and you'd never feel the need to quicksave. But this assumes such games exist - I can't think of a single checkpoint-only game where at some point I haven't become immensely frustrated by a combination of bad game design and poorly-placed checkpoints. Remember the gulag shower sequence in Modern Warfare 2? Quick saves might be a crutch, but sometimes I need that crutch to actually enjoy something.
Of course, I approach games as 'interactive entertainment' - I gain no satisfaction from succeeding at some arbitrary challenge imposed by the developers - so this has doubtless coloured my views.
With design in question, I still point to Quake 4. Why must people act as though these are opposing ideas? I'm advocating all of the above. Q4 had a fine checkpoint and autosave system, and you were free to use just it. I often did, because I didn't wanna slow my pace.
Basically, people who feel they need to save at all times are of the opinion that a challenge should be limited to a single encounter.
When game designers don't think that, and think their challenge should be getting through a selection of encounters, they use checkpoints.
I side strongly with the designers in this case.
Why do you claim to know what I feel I need? I save when I feel its appropriate, or just on intervals because I want to. But I'm playing this game the way that maximizes my enjoyment, thats the important part.
Checkpoints aren't bad, and no one is saying toss them out. Again, both. Both systems. You're free to use or not use. The argument of not resisting temptation is just awful. I'm trying to think of a real life analogy, but it always ties back to being forced to pick the slow kid at sports, which is irrelevant but funny.
What does that have to do with this? That's not a solution at all. I'm sorry, but if I like the look of a game, and it has a bad save system, you are telling me I now have to not play the game and can't enjoy what I liked about the game because of something I consider sub par.
Well I'm really not sure how you think that's an acceptable argument or even unrelated to force.
This is the same argument as "just don't save". "Just don't buy it".
I'm glad you're here Morninglord, its amazing how quick this place moves when I go to sleep. You guys and your timezones.
Anyways, just don't buy it is a very bad, bad, bad, and bad thing to say. You're telling me not to support good games, because of one design flaw.
This isn't a car without brakes, this is a game without breaks. Hey-oh!
If you lack willpower such that you will use a quicksave system even if you know full well it diminishes your game experience, you have no one to blame for that but yourself. Not the developers, not players who like quicksaves. Yourself. Its no reason to exclude a quicksave.
This is pretty much what I'm not getting. How can someone honestly argue against this? If the choice is yours, the problem is yours. Don't make me lose out on any amount of enjoyment because you guys can't say no.
I am not telling you that you have to not play the game. You can also try to fit it into your schedule and suffer through it. You aren't forced on either decision.
How could it be the same argument as "just don't save," when that's not a real choice? Choosing to play a game with a single element you don't like, versus not playing it, is clearly a real choice.
So developers should just release every game with a full godmode, debug, cheating available online, the works, because if people abuse it then it's their own fault and not the developer's? That'll go over really well.
About the first part of this, I do that with checkpoint games like Dead Space. See, I like that game, enough to go through until I have every item maxed out. However, I can't do it. I got midway into my second play through and stopped. Not because of challenge, it never held any for me, I'm on Normal. I stopped because I was tired of it telling me when I could or could not stop playing it. With most games, I get maybe 15 to 45 minutes of play before needing a break, Dead Space is no exception, I don't want to back track to the last checkpoint or force myself forward, not enjoying the process.
Actually I do think they should release all games with cheats like that.
I remember when almost every game that came out had cheat codes. I remember having almost as much fun in Jedi Outcast and Academy with the console as I did playing the actual real game.
Cheating available online is a different thing, that affects other players. Quicksaving or not affects only yourself.
Again, there is literally no good reason to not include a quicksave in every game. For those games where it diminishes the game experience, the developers should simply state that at the beginning and let players choose to use/abuse it as they will.
If you prefer your game experiences without quicksaving, simply don't save. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. If you are incapable of "not saving", and need a developer to hold your hand to make your game experience what you want it to be, thats your problem.
An argument for another time, but cheats not being in games these days is really silly. As a kid, I'd always go back into a beat game just to "break" it with cheats.
Still on the subject of Blood Money, they released a necessary patch and in the process removed the cheat console. Bollocks to them! With Silent Assassin, they added a cheat console in the patch. Times have changed and they've changed for the sillier.
You're really quite forceful that your opinion is right. When in fact it's just an opinion.
Game designers make a choice on how they want their game to be played. Quick saves don't always fit in with their choice. Quick saves rule out any risk, and without risk there's less reward. Your original arguement was that devs should say: "For the proper experience, don't use the quick saves" and include them. WHY bother including them? That's how the game is meant to be played.
How about board games, playing them as a kid if you didn't get the dice roll you wanted did you snatch it back to try again? What's the point in playing then?
If they're there people are going to use them. The pace of a video game, especially now they're becoming more cinematic, is all important. If a designer decides they don't want you to be able to break that pace with constant reloading to try and get through that section with 5 hp more then that's their decision. They shouldn't have to pander to the crowd that don't like a challenge in their gaming.
The other approach I've liked recently, which is sort of a compromise, is the "flashbacks" feature in Grid and most recently in Dirt 2. Depending upon difficulty level you get a certain number of flashbacks, at any time during the race you can bring up a replay of the last 20 seconds and restart your driving from any point.
It still keeps you tense because you don't want to waste them. Also the higher the difficulty the more of a bonus you get for coming first.
The way games are structured nowadays I can't think of that many examples of where quick saves would actually enhance a game.
You could always wait ten years, run a PS3 emulator and save whenever you liked then.
Just on the first bolded part, I find that really fun. The argument on the pro-save side is actually not forceful. Its inclusive, arguing for allowing your save system with "ours".
Risk is not ruled out by options, unless that option is taken. It keeps coming back to this. We say "offer options" and you guys say "we can't help it!".
Pace is still important and player should be free to either use it or not, and decide how they preferred the game. Considering I'm not asking them to completely rewrite their games, but to simply include a generic and basic function, no different than putting a in volume control, I can't find the reason not to.
My thoughts on limited saves aren't much different from no-saves because they give me the same problems. Limited save is limited saves.
If every challenge is 5-10 minutes long, I greatly prefer having the game automatically do everything and take me out of the drivers seat when it comes to saving my progress.
I think what people remember and dislike was the era when you could do 30 minutes of playing and then lose it all due to badly designed checkpoints. Obviously, that's incredibly annoying. But if I'm quick saving all the time, I kinda feel like the developers let me down. I don't want to feel responsible for backing up my progress, I just want to concentrate on the experience itself.
When a game relies on the "challenge" of checkpoints, I find that it often isn't that. Call of Duty for example, I never played the hardest difficulty, I think I did regular, but it was never challenging. It was often fucking frustrating, though. Infinite enemy respawns is the real culprit here, but the checkpoint save system basically said to me "hurhur, do it again stupid"*.
- Never found the GTA series difficult, but I wholly agree with the sentiment.
These 3 things. We're talking about SP games, and while they do have achievements, I am playing SP games for my enjoyment, not the magnificient epeen. If I want to legitimately get one, then I will. I will load and get it, know I did it "properly".
And mods. Yes, cheats and mods are perfectly valid. This notion that the developer knows best is consistently proven wrong. Devs make great engines, fans make great games. I keed, I keed, but you must acknowledge the ability to take a singleplayer game your way is an attractive proposition.
When I played BioShock, I had Vita Chambers on. Not because I needed them or even wanted them. I still restarted anytime I died, because I didn't care for that. Same deal with playing Prey, I saved properly and when I died, I went back to a save. I was damned glad for the options they presented, though, because when I was screwing around (and these are video games, by definition, I'm always just screwin' around), it gave me freedom.
Like with IWBTG, I'll concede a bit here. Not being on consoles means I don't deal with these types of games. I'm going with RTS, RPG, FPS, action and shooters, etc, etc. Still with that in mind, though, why not? Maybe I got bored halfway through the song and I'm on a roll. Maybe I just really like the solo but hate the song. Whatever the silly reason is, why not save?
While there is definitely something to be said about pacing and design, you're free to play that way. Again, inclusive vs. exclusive. I play games, generally speaking, as they were "intended" to get the developers vision out of it, then I play it my way. I like being able to play it my way, since thats just another of saying "play it the way I enjoy more".
I feel that first sentence was kind of an attempt to diminish the argument, some grab at higher ground by going "srs bznez,amirite?" We all know this is opinions and this is the intrawebz with its tubes and clogs and all that good stuff. We're having a friendly discussion, or I'd hope so, I don't understand why that sentence was necessary. Now you've forced me to wag my finger, Sporky. Why you gotta make me wag my finger?
Why shouldn't games have a perfect save system? Its perfect. See what I did there? Thats what I call decisive victory.
Anyways, being srs now, you're right. Devs don't owe me jack, except an enjoyable experience. While I can't say that a checkpoint system ever ruined a game for me (Far Cry aside, fuck Crytek so hard), I can definitely say my enjoyment was lessened. They're often under the mistaken impression that their way is the only or right way, without consideration for the players. I can't help but view all these checkpoints as a hold over from the days of yore, and devs just haven't gotten that.
The indie game example is a bad example, since I think its understood we're not talking about this in small terms. We're talking about big titles by companies that can afford the couple of hours it takes to slap on a save system. Yeah, I know it'd take more than a "couple hours", and I'm disappointed I actually had to make this sentence to ensure no one took it verbatim. We're talking about companies that can implement this without risk to delay or destruction of the title.
And that teaches me to go to sleep and expect this place to stay static. You guys should join the normal world (mine!), because your timezones are geese for not being synched up with mine.
Anyways, just don't buy it is a very bad, bad, bad, and bad thing to say. You're telling me not to support good games, because of one design flaw.
I'm not telling you anything of the sort, I'm telling you to buy it, or not buy it, as you will. Support the games with save systems you like and vice versa, but don't try to tell devs what they have to do.
This is pretty much what I'm not getting. How can someone honestly argue against this? If the choice is yours, the problem is yours. Don't make me lose out on any amount of enjoyment because you guys can't say no.
Hey, again, that's a fine argument to make. Similarly, devs ought to make all games with 8-bit graphics forever, since if you don't like it the problem lies with you, not with the developers.
Just on the first bolded part, I find that really fun. The argument on the pro-save side is actually not forceful. Its inclusive, arguing for allowing your save system with "ours".
Not forceful. Right. You want every dev to use a specific save system and that's not forceful.
You're forgetting the third party that's affected here: the developers who have to conform to this saving system and design their games around it, whether too-difficult-to-play-without-save-spamming, or just ignoring it and being insanely easy as a result.
Disallowing quicksaves is just as inclusive, because again, you can play your games and we can play ours. Everybody wins, especially the devs.
On the NES we had Kirby alongside Contra. Now we'd only have Kirby, if it weren't for the rare gem that was actually punishing and didn't take less than 10 hours to get through. With your system, every game would be trivial unless you wanted the punishment, and who wants that?
The talk about willpower is all nonsense. When you play an easy game, do you immediately go through it again without equipping anything, or without leveling up? Some people do, but these people are few and far between. You're saying if the developers design a game that is too easy, it's somehow my fault for not intentionally making it harder for myself?
Portal's too easy, I guess I didn't have the willpower to force myself to mod the game to take more fall damage.
I don't understand how someone could not understand this.
Whoa, this village is spooky...crap, they saw me! Die die die! Oh god, I'm out of ammo, and that lady got a few hits in...was that the sound of a chainsaw?! Ducking into this house...oh man, some much needed ammo and an herb. Shoot, they're coming through! Maybe I'll have time to take this herb upstaiAAAAHH chainsaw man! Back down, maybe I can get out the door again...oh my god, so many ganados...
vs.
Lots of ganados milling around in this village...F5. Whoops, that guy noticed me and yelled. F8, I'll be sneaky this time. Got into a shack, F5. Gathering ammo from various objects...whoops, took too long and guys are breaking in. F8. There, now I have enough ammo and the door's still barred. F5. Oh no, a chainsaw guy is upstairs! F8. This time I'll stand at the base of the steps and kill him. Aw, he got me, F8. There, killed him this time. F5.
Which is more suspenseful? Be honest with yourself. Would you really feel the same sense of urgency?
Or how about this:
Oh crap, I'm so close to five starring Dragonforce on Expert...I've practiced this song for so long...50 notes left, if I can just keep it together until then....
vs.
Whoops, missed a note. F8. Did it again. F8. Whew, beat that section, F5...
If thats more enjoyable for you, then play it that way. I don't care. I just don't. Nor should you care if I enjoy it the latter way. Thats my decision.
I'm not telling you anything of the sort, I'm telling you to buy it, or not buy it, as you will. Support the games with save systems you like and vice versa, but don't try to tell devs what they have to do.
Hey, again, that's a fine argument to make. Similarly, devs ought to make all games with 8-bit graphics forever, since if you don't like it the problem lies with you, not with the developers.
Not forceful. Right. You want every dev to use a specific save system and that's not forceful.
You're forgetting the third party that's affected here: the developers who have to conform to this saving system and design their games around it, whether too-difficult-to-play-without-save-spamming, or just ignoring it and being insanely easy as a result.
Disallowing quicksaves is just as inclusive, because again, you can play your games and we can play ours. Everybody wins, especially the devs.
On the NES we had Kirby alongside Contra. Now we'd only have Kirby, if it weren't for the rare gem that was actually punishing and didn't take less than 10 hours to get through. With your system, every game would be trivial unless you wanted the punishment, and who wants that?
The talk about willpower is all nonsense. When you play an easy game, do you immediately go through it again without equipping anything, or without leveling up? Some people do, but these people are few and far between. You're saying if the developers design a game that is too easy, it's somehow my fault for not intentionally making it harder for myself?
Portal's too easy, I guess I didn't have the willpower to force myself to mod the game to take more fall damage.
So, I've quotes again, for size-sake. I would hope I know what I said, anyways.:P
It isn't forceful, though. I'm forced to use your methods, my methods would exist, not not force you. You can claim its a force on the devs, but it isn't really. Dead Space again, they wouldn't have had to change anything other than adding in a larger save option. The checkpoint system as it exists could still be there, without contradiction. Its a player choice, play it the exact way developers set it or play it the way they'd also allow you to.
You are exactly saying I shouldn't buy games based on save systems. You keep saying you're not, but you are. You just said "you can play your games and we can play ours." Why is Dead Space your game and not mine? I like Dead Space, I don't like the save feature.
I know I shouldn't be, but that I'm actually pissed at that statement. Thats just felt insulting, "go off and play your games, we'll keep the good (but flawed) games". Don't tell me to stay out or something, man. I like games with checkpoints, I don't like checkpoints. Your logical conclusion has a shitty premise of "he doesn't like checkpoints, therefore he doesn't like games with them". Please stop drawing that conclusion.
Wilpower is not nonsense. Think of it as player power or an RPG. How many people go through a second time? Most of us? How you do it isn't relevant. If you're enjoying (to the fullest potential you as a player can), that is. I just can't wrap my head around my being punished because you can't help yourself. Please don't make an argument based around the weakest link.
Also, the 8-bit comment was objectively stupid. That was stupid, man. Stop making save systems into a game mechanic, instead of design. Having shitty 8-bit graphics would by fine, anyways, if thats what the mechanics entail. You would be right to say that problem lies with me, though. That is a game-relevant mechanic decided upon on behalf of the devs, if I don't like that, its my problem. I don't care for Final Fantasy so I don't play it, and thats great. I'm not arguing FF should be like WRPGs because I don't like it. I'm arguing that I should allowed to enjoy products my way and you should be allowed to enjoy them your way, without them needing to interfere with each other.
Stop it. Just stop it.
Some of what I said is probably incoherent because I got flustered typing it up, I'll probably cut it down later.
Also, I forgot to address the earlier comment about boardgames. Boardgames are multiplayer games without even having enforcable rules. Unlike a MP video game, there is no "ban" for hacks or something. Its up to the players at the start of the game to agree upon which rules are followed and enforced. Not to mention if someone breaks the contract, you can physically smack 'em across the back of the head for it. Silly analogy.
I didn't say Dead Space was mine but not yours. Maybe it's both of ours. It depends on whether you buy it or not. Because, you know, you have that choice, which I didn't dictate for you.
If for some obscene reason a person decided that 3D graphics was a flaw, what would you tell him? Not to buy those games? I thought so. You wouldn't turn around and sigh and tell the devs they have to make a sprite-based version of the game to accommodate that person. Same situation.
I wasn't really talking about music games, though. because in a music game, the skill is all there is, when playing solo. And save scumming on multiplayer would be terribly sad. I'm talking about FPS and RPGs and other games like that, with a less focused approach on pure gaming. I don't even know how you would put saves on a game like Ouendan, even if you can close the ds and come back later, you're probably gonna fail that song anyway.
But what if someone has some sort of nerve or muscular problem? I'm sure he or she would love to take a slower approach to a harder song. I dunno.
On the other hand, fuck, maybe if RE4 had save anywhere I would have finished it. I would have enjoyed it a lot more, that's for sure. I'd be more daring and wouldn't sigh in frustration after beating the damn Gigante but ending up ammo-less because of it. and I really, really hate redoing a piece of a game over and over and over (well, except when playing GH or Ouendan, but, again, those games are quite different).
Stating that "you must remove quick saves because people will always abuse it" is a lie though. I never used cheats on GTA for anything other than quick 5 minutes mayhem sessions that I did not save. I haven't "ruined" a SP game with cheats since Doom. I don't even know if there are cheats on most games I played. The one single time I managed to save the Ralari in the Kurosawa 3 mission in Wing Commander 1, in twenty fucking years playing it, was by skill (or luck). I never used cheats on that most hard of missions. That is just the same thing as save abusing.
I like achievements because they're 100% optional. I can just ignore those I believe to be too hard or annoying. Again, same thing. Maybe devs should make achievements mandatory for game progression, right?
I didn't say Dead Space was mine but not yours. Maybe it's both of ours. It depends on whether you buy it or not. Because, you know, you have that choice, which I didn't dictate for you.
If for some obscene reason a person decided that 3D graphics was a flaw, what would you tell him? Not to buy those games? I thought so. You wouldn't turn around and sigh and tell the devs they have to make a sprite-based version of the game to accommodate that person. Same situation.
Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you mean, but I continually see that as the arguement.
However, 3D graphics change the very nature of the game. A game like Fallout 3 vs. Fallout 1/2. You're comparing a feature within the game, to one outside of it. One impacts the very game itself and is 100% relevant to the game, the other is an optional matter, just like mods or cheats.
I cannot choose to play the 8-bit version of Badass McGee's 3D Extraganza of Ohmanthatwasawesome. I can however choose whether or not I save when dueling the Panda of Despair at dawn with my Deathbranch, because that will change the game in a way that doesn't impact any other players. I could also mod out the Panda because I think he's a dick and this still doesn't change the impact on other players. I could God mode it because I like to run circles around the Panda and thump him with my useless Two-Thumbs of Green attack, and still not impact other players.
At the end of the day, my option remains the one not interfering with players or devs. Devs still implement their chosen checkpoints and autosaves, and players that choose to still use them. I will, however, choose to run around the Panda with my thumbs.
Badass McGee's 3D Extravaganza of Ohmanthatwasawesome will be released in the fall of 2011, by the way.
I cannot choose to play the 8-bit version of Badass McGee's 3D Extraganza of Ohmanthatwasawesome. I can however choose whether or not I save when dueling the Panda of Despair at dawn with my Deathbranch, because that will change the game in a way that doesn't impact any other players.
You can only do either of these things if the developers implement it.
You think a game without quicksaves is flawed, so devs have to add that in to satisfy you. It's part of the difficulty selection at the beginning, we'll say.
I think a game without 8-bit graphics is flawed, so devs have to add that in to satisfy me. It's a special mode separate from the 3D version.
In both situations we can choose to play the game that way without impacting other players, but you can bet the developers are affected. It's not as simple as flipping a switch - the game has to be designed differently to accommodate the different playstyle. This is evidenced by how many emulated games are broken by save states, since they weren't designed with that in mind.
You still didn't answer my question: what do you tell the person who thinks 3D graphics are a flaw? What about the person who thinks games that run at less than 1080p are flawed, or games that only run at 640x480? What if I think all racing games are inherently flawed? Do you honestly have anything to say besides "don't play it?" Then why can't I say the same thing if you don't like the save system?
Look, they're different things. You've put a point that is equivalent to taking out a health meter in favour of regeneration. These are mechanics relevant to gameplay, and while I might favour one, that is no longer my call.
I did answer the question about the 3D guy. He's can't tell the difference between a mechanic and a design. He wants an entirely different game. This is not what I am asking for. I am asking for the exact same game, simply expanded. The devs are not adding in game changing mechanics, they're adding in alleviating design. Semantics or not, they're different goosing things!
So, simply put, the guy that makes the 3D comment is an ass without a legitimate complaint. No, I am not an ass, because I have a legitimate complaint and a properly made defense of it.
Again, I'll continue to use Dead Space, as its a common enough product. There is no difference. The simple implementation of save-anywhere would not have required ANYTHING else for me. I don't care for people that are going to nitpick, there is a clear line here. There is changing the game and there is just tossing on a save feature, I am asking for the latter. I do not want the game to change, I like the game, I enjoyed it. I want the save system improved.
Stop mangling my points into things they are not.
And to reiterate, the 3D guy is an ass. Design =/= mechanic. Aesthetics =/= gameplay. Stop this. For McGee's sake, stop this.
At least Dead Space had enough save points so it almost didn't make a difference. and it had some sort of secret checkpoint system too, if you died on some parts.
What I hate is the Japanese thing, how they love to put save crystals every 5 hours of game. Fuck them.
And to reiterate, the 3D guy is an ass. Design =/= mechanic. Aesthetics =/= gameplay. Stop this. For McGee's sake, stop this.
I already brought up gameplay-related questions, which you just dodged again. If you think a dribbling mechanic in a basketball game is flawed? If you think skill points have no place in your RPGs? Let's make it really relevant: if you think no games should allow you to save, ever? Devs need to incorporate these things in order to satisfy you. "Not playing it" is unacceptable. After all, you're not asking for an entirely different game, you just want those silly skill points removed, right?
Learn to see the main point, rather than targeting specific bits while missing it altogether. Here, I'll bold it for you: If you ask something of a developer that is not currently in his game, he does not have to provide it for you. You are free to not play his game.
I find it mildly disturbing that you don't think that quicksaves necessitate any design changes. The short term game has to be made more difficult in order to keep up, while not making it impossible for the people who don't save as often. People are more likely to blow past certain parts of the game, which need to be identified, so that undue effort is not expended on the graphic and sound design there. Why put extra effort when a segment's going to get save-stated past?
I want y'all to be totally honest with me: if I read all 6 pages of this thread am I going to see anything other than a bunch of people getting angry at each other for not liking games the way that they're supposed to?
I want y'all to be totally honest with me: if I read all 6 pages of this thread am I going to see anything other than a bunch of people getting angry at each other for not liking games the way that they're supposed to?
I want y'all to be totally honest with me: if I read all 6 pages of this thread am I going to see anything other than a bunch of people getting angry at each other for not liking games the way that they're supposed to?
I want y'all to be totally honest with me: if I read all 6 pages of this thread am I going to see anything other than a bunch of people getting angry at each other for not liking games the way that they're supposed to?
Just make sure you read it all at once; there's no checkpoints in case you die half way through.
Also don't quick save, that would ruin the suspense.
Why do you claim to know what I feel I need? I save when I feel its appropriate, or just on intervals because I want to. But I'm playing this game the way that maximizes my enjoyment, thats the important part.
Where did I claim anything of the sort? If you are not a person who feels the need to save all the time, why are you responding to a comment by definition not directed at you?
Is this like the first one, where there are giant blue glowy crystals that actually disappear once you use them, so in order to not waste them you have to ignore them and forge ahead and come back to use them later?
That was even worse than Resident Evil. Every typewriter breaks after one use!
Actually, TRIII was worse
The original Tomb Raider was what you just described; a blue crystal at a predetermined point, and you can use it once to save your game there.
In Tomb Raider II, they let you save any and everywhere. Craziness! Why not just stick with that?
In Tomb Raider III, you pick up save crystals at predetermined points, but it adds them to your inventory. You can then use a save crystal to save anywhere. So if I have three save crystals in my inventory, I can only save my game three times wherever I choose to.
I already brought up gameplay-related questions, which you just dodged again. If you think a dribbling mechanic in a basketball game is flawed? If you think skill points have no place in your RPGs? Let's make it really relevant: if you think no games should allow you to save, ever? Devs need to incorporate these things in order to satisfy you. "Not playing it" is unacceptable. After all, you're not asking for an entirely different game, you just want those silly skill points removed, right?
Learn to see the main point, rather than targeting specific bits while missing it altogether. Here, I'll bold it for you: If you ask something of a developer that is not currently in his game, he does not have to provide it for you. You are free to not play his game.
I find it mildly disturbing that you don't think that quicksaves necessitate any design changes. The short term game has to be made more difficult in order to keep up, while not making it impossible for the people who don't save as often. People are more likely to blow past certain parts of the game, which need to be identified, so that undue effort is not expended on the graphic and sound design there. Why put extra effort when a segment's going to get save-stated past?
I wonder if you will ever realise that this is force.
I don't think you will. You seem to have automagically reasoned to yourself that denying someone a game indirectly is not force. Indirect force is not force, apparently.
And yes, this is what you are doing.
You are being extremely hypocritical you know, I find it very hard to take your arguments seriously at this point.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The next time y'all feel like having an argument with some random guy on the internet because he doesn't like the same savegame system as you I'd like you to think about the fact that you have a limited number of minutes on this earth before you die.
Posts
Seriously, why are you focusing on the game instead of something in the real world, particularly with a wife involved? If the game is getting to you, pack it in and come back another day. Not the end of the world in the slightest. At the end of the day, games don't matter enough to get furious with.
This is an issue of areas with bullshit difficulty, not being unable to to quicksave anywhere.
Look at it like this: currently, devs can use the save system as part of the presentation of the game. If all games had to use the exact same system, then devs would no longer be able to make certain design decisions. They recognize it would be pointless to waste effort on certain sections when they know the majority of people who pick up the game will just quicksave their way through and obliterate any real challenge to the game.
And again, only certain games really benefit from limited saves. If it's truly so mind-rapingly horrifying to face the loss of whole minutes of progress to take care of something which actually matters, then don't play those games.
Whoa, this village is spooky...crap, they saw me! Die die die! Oh god, I'm out of ammo, and that lady got a few hits in...was that the sound of a chainsaw?! Ducking into this house...oh man, some much needed ammo and an herb. Shoot, they're coming through! Maybe I'll have time to take this herb upstaiAAAAHH chainsaw man! Back down, maybe I can get out the door again...oh my god, so many ganados...
vs.
Lots of ganados milling around in this village...F5. Whoops, that guy noticed me and yelled. F8, I'll be sneaky this time. Got into a shack, F5. Gathering ammo from various objects...whoops, took too long and guys are breaking in. F8. There, now I have enough ammo and the door's still barred. F5. Oh no, a chainsaw guy is upstairs! F8. This time I'll stand at the base of the steps and kill him. Aw, he got me, F8. There, killed him this time. F5.
Which is more suspenseful? Be honest with yourself. Would you really feel the same sense of urgency?
Or how about this:
Oh crap, I'm so close to five starring Dragonforce on Expert...I've practiced this song for so long...50 notes left, if I can just keep it together until then....
vs.
Whoops, missed a note. F8. Did it again. F8. Whew, beat that section, F5...
I'd like to start of by making the point I feel my argument is superior, if for only one reason, in that its inclusive. The no-to-save arguments are all very exclusionary and telling me how I should enjoy the game, where as I'm demanding options, increasing and allowing for more.
I'll also put down for the record, I have not played any game in recent memory that was made more challenging by checkpoint systems. It simply doesn't make it harder, nor does it add a feeling of accomplishment for me when I get past some annoying QTE because it was too vague to understand the symbols. Clive Barker's Jericho, guys. Stop trying to tell me that thing was better for its checkpoints.
And without further ado, I bring you my incoherent argumentative abilities:
Blood Money is a very bad example. As we've both said, it was piss easy. So we have an issue at hand, because Blood Money was made poorer for that fact. Granted, I do replay the Hitman games for the perfect hit, I also replay them for the goofs. This is Hitman tradition. Lots of players do exactly this, its just a part of the series.
This is where I'll find myself conceding a small bit, with IWBTG. Never played it, and as said, I don't play consoles, meaning I don't bother with platformers. I know IWBTG is PC, but it is a platformer. Anyways, my understanding was that IWBTG was an intentional throwback, intended to piss off its players, but be a non-serious game, so the deaths were good fun. Key word is throwback, though. It was meant to be from a time that, frankly, shouldn't be a paragon of saves.
With design in question, I still point to Quake 4. Why must people act as though these are opposing ideas? I'm advocating all of the above. Q4 had a fine checkpoint and autosave system, and you were free to use just it. I often did, because I didn't wanna slow my pace.
Why do you claim to know what I feel I need? I save when I feel its appropriate, or just on intervals because I want to. But I'm playing this game the way that maximizes my enjoyment, thats the important part.
Checkpoints aren't bad, and no one is saying toss them out. Again, both. Both systems. You're free to use or not use. The argument of not resisting temptation is just awful. I'm trying to think of a real life analogy, but it always ties back to being forced to pick the slow kid at sports, which is irrelevant but funny.
I'm glad you're here Morninglord, its amazing how quick this place moves when I go to sleep. You guys and your timezones.
Anyways, just don't buy it is a very bad, bad, bad, and bad thing to say. You're telling me not to support good games, because of one design flaw.
This isn't a car without brakes, this is a game without breaks. Hey-oh!
This is pretty much what I'm not getting. How can someone honestly argue against this? If the choice is yours, the problem is yours. Don't make me lose out on any amount of enjoyment because you guys can't say no.
About the first part of this, I do that with checkpoint games like Dead Space. See, I like that game, enough to go through until I have every item maxed out. However, I can't do it. I got midway into my second play through and stopped. Not because of challenge, it never held any for me, I'm on Normal. I stopped because I was tired of it telling me when I could or could not stop playing it. With most games, I get maybe 15 to 45 minutes of play before needing a break, Dead Space is no exception, I don't want to back track to the last checkpoint or force myself forward, not enjoying the process.
An argument for another time, but cheats not being in games these days is really silly. As a kid, I'd always go back into a beat game just to "break" it with cheats.
Still on the subject of Blood Money, they released a necessary patch and in the process removed the cheat console. Bollocks to them! With Silent Assassin, they added a cheat console in the patch. Times have changed and they've changed for the sillier.
Just on the first bolded part, I find that really fun. The argument on the pro-save side is actually not forceful. Its inclusive, arguing for allowing your save system with "ours".
Risk is not ruled out by options, unless that option is taken. It keeps coming back to this. We say "offer options" and you guys say "we can't help it!".
Pace is still important and player should be free to either use it or not, and decide how they preferred the game. Considering I'm not asking them to completely rewrite their games, but to simply include a generic and basic function, no different than putting a in volume control, I can't find the reason not to.
My thoughts on limited saves aren't much different from no-saves because they give me the same problems. Limited save is limited saves.
When a game relies on the "challenge" of checkpoints, I find that it often isn't that. Call of Duty for example, I never played the hardest difficulty, I think I did regular, but it was never challenging. It was often fucking frustrating, though. Infinite enemy respawns is the real culprit here, but the checkpoint save system basically said to me "hurhur, do it again stupid"*.
- Never found the GTA series difficult, but I wholly agree with the sentiment.
I'm not telling you anything of the sort, I'm telling you to buy it, or not buy it, as you will. Support the games with save systems you like and vice versa, but don't try to tell devs what they have to do.
Hey, again, that's a fine argument to make. Similarly, devs ought to make all games with 8-bit graphics forever, since if you don't like it the problem lies with you, not with the developers.
Not forceful. Right. You want every dev to use a specific save system and that's not forceful.
You're forgetting the third party that's affected here: the developers who have to conform to this saving system and design their games around it, whether too-difficult-to-play-without-save-spamming, or just ignoring it and being insanely easy as a result.
Disallowing quicksaves is just as inclusive, because again, you can play your games and we can play ours. Everybody wins, especially the devs.
On the NES we had Kirby alongside Contra. Now we'd only have Kirby, if it weren't for the rare gem that was actually punishing and didn't take less than 10 hours to get through. With your system, every game would be trivial unless you wanted the punishment, and who wants that?
The talk about willpower is all nonsense. When you play an easy game, do you immediately go through it again without equipping anything, or without leveling up? Some people do, but these people are few and far between. You're saying if the developers design a game that is too easy, it's somehow my fault for not intentionally making it harder for myself?
Portal's too easy, I guess I didn't have the willpower to force myself to mod the game to take more fall damage.
If thats more enjoyable for you, then play it that way. I don't care. I just don't. Nor should you care if I enjoy it the latter way. Thats my decision.
Stop it. Just stop it.
So, I've quotes again, for size-sake. I would hope I know what I said, anyways.:P
It isn't forceful, though. I'm forced to use your methods, my methods would exist, not not force you. You can claim its a force on the devs, but it isn't really. Dead Space again, they wouldn't have had to change anything other than adding in a larger save option. The checkpoint system as it exists could still be there, without contradiction. Its a player choice, play it the exact way developers set it or play it the way they'd also allow you to.
You are exactly saying I shouldn't buy games based on save systems. You keep saying you're not, but you are. You just said "you can play your games and we can play ours." Why is Dead Space your game and not mine? I like Dead Space, I don't like the save feature.
I know I shouldn't be, but that I'm actually pissed at that statement. Thats just felt insulting, "go off and play your games, we'll keep the good (but flawed) games". Don't tell me to stay out or something, man. I like games with checkpoints, I don't like checkpoints. Your logical conclusion has a shitty premise of "he doesn't like checkpoints, therefore he doesn't like games with them". Please stop drawing that conclusion.
Wilpower is not nonsense. Think of it as player power or an RPG. How many people go through a second time? Most of us? How you do it isn't relevant. If you're enjoying (to the fullest potential you as a player can), that is. I just can't wrap my head around my being punished because you can't help yourself. Please don't make an argument based around the weakest link.
Also, the 8-bit comment was objectively stupid. That was stupid, man. Stop making save systems into a game mechanic, instead of design. Having shitty 8-bit graphics would by fine, anyways, if thats what the mechanics entail. You would be right to say that problem lies with me, though. That is a game-relevant mechanic decided upon on behalf of the devs, if I don't like that, its my problem. I don't care for Final Fantasy so I don't play it, and thats great. I'm not arguing FF should be like WRPGs because I don't like it. I'm arguing that I should allowed to enjoy products my way and you should be allowed to enjoy them your way, without them needing to interfere with each other.
Stop it. Just stop it.
Some of what I said is probably incoherent because I got flustered typing it up, I'll probably cut it down later.
Also, I forgot to address the earlier comment about boardgames. Boardgames are multiplayer games without even having enforcable rules. Unlike a MP video game, there is no "ban" for hacks or something. Its up to the players at the start of the game to agree upon which rules are followed and enforced. Not to mention if someone breaks the contract, you can physically smack 'em across the back of the head for it. Silly analogy.
If for some obscene reason a person decided that 3D graphics was a flaw, what would you tell him? Not to buy those games? I thought so. You wouldn't turn around and sigh and tell the devs they have to make a sprite-based version of the game to accommodate that person. Same situation.
But what if someone has some sort of nerve or muscular problem? I'm sure he or she would love to take a slower approach to a harder song. I dunno.
On the other hand, fuck, maybe if RE4 had save anywhere I would have finished it. I would have enjoyed it a lot more, that's for sure. I'd be more daring and wouldn't sigh in frustration after beating the damn Gigante but ending up ammo-less because of it. and I really, really hate redoing a piece of a game over and over and over (well, except when playing GH or Ouendan, but, again, those games are quite different).
Stating that "you must remove quick saves because people will always abuse it" is a lie though. I never used cheats on GTA for anything other than quick 5 minutes mayhem sessions that I did not save. I haven't "ruined" a SP game with cheats since Doom. I don't even know if there are cheats on most games I played. The one single time I managed to save the Ralari in the Kurosawa 3 mission in Wing Commander 1, in twenty fucking years playing it, was by skill (or luck). I never used cheats on that most hard of missions. That is just the same thing as save abusing.
I like achievements because they're 100% optional. I can just ignore those I believe to be too hard or annoying. Again, same thing. Maybe devs should make achievements mandatory for game progression, right?
Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you mean, but I continually see that as the arguement.
However, 3D graphics change the very nature of the game. A game like Fallout 3 vs. Fallout 1/2. You're comparing a feature within the game, to one outside of it. One impacts the very game itself and is 100% relevant to the game, the other is an optional matter, just like mods or cheats.
I cannot choose to play the 8-bit version of Badass McGee's 3D Extraganza of Ohmanthatwasawesome. I can however choose whether or not I save when dueling the Panda of Despair at dawn with my Deathbranch, because that will change the game in a way that doesn't impact any other players. I could also mod out the Panda because I think he's a dick and this still doesn't change the impact on other players. I could God mode it because I like to run circles around the Panda and thump him with my useless Two-Thumbs of Green attack, and still not impact other players.
At the end of the day, my option remains the one not interfering with players or devs. Devs still implement their chosen checkpoints and autosaves, and players that choose to still use them. I will, however, choose to run around the Panda with my thumbs.
Badass McGee's 3D Extravaganza of Ohmanthatwasawesome will be released in the fall of 2011, by the way.
You can only do either of these things if the developers implement it.
You think a game without quicksaves is flawed, so devs have to add that in to satisfy you. It's part of the difficulty selection at the beginning, we'll say.
I think a game without 8-bit graphics is flawed, so devs have to add that in to satisfy me. It's a special mode separate from the 3D version.
In both situations we can choose to play the game that way without impacting other players, but you can bet the developers are affected. It's not as simple as flipping a switch - the game has to be designed differently to accommodate the different playstyle. This is evidenced by how many emulated games are broken by save states, since they weren't designed with that in mind.
You still didn't answer my question: what do you tell the person who thinks 3D graphics are a flaw? What about the person who thinks games that run at less than 1080p are flawed, or games that only run at 640x480? What if I think all racing games are inherently flawed? Do you honestly have anything to say besides "don't play it?" Then why can't I say the same thing if you don't like the save system?
I did answer the question about the 3D guy. He's can't tell the difference between a mechanic and a design. He wants an entirely different game. This is not what I am asking for. I am asking for the exact same game, simply expanded. The devs are not adding in game changing mechanics, they're adding in alleviating design. Semantics or not, they're different goosing things!
So, simply put, the guy that makes the 3D comment is an ass without a legitimate complaint. No, I am not an ass, because I have a legitimate complaint and a properly made defense of it.
Again, I'll continue to use Dead Space, as its a common enough product. There is no difference. The simple implementation of save-anywhere would not have required ANYTHING else for me. I don't care for people that are going to nitpick, there is a clear line here. There is changing the game and there is just tossing on a save feature, I am asking for the latter. I do not want the game to change, I like the game, I enjoyed it. I want the save system improved.
Stop mangling my points into things they are not.
And to reiterate, the 3D guy is an ass. Design =/= mechanic. Aesthetics =/= gameplay. Stop this. For McGee's sake, stop this.
What I hate is the Japanese thing, how they love to put save crystals every 5 hours of game. Fuck them.
I already brought up gameplay-related questions, which you just dodged again. If you think a dribbling mechanic in a basketball game is flawed? If you think skill points have no place in your RPGs? Let's make it really relevant: if you think no games should allow you to save, ever? Devs need to incorporate these things in order to satisfy you. "Not playing it" is unacceptable. After all, you're not asking for an entirely different game, you just want those silly skill points removed, right?
Learn to see the main point, rather than targeting specific bits while missing it altogether. Here, I'll bold it for you: If you ask something of a developer that is not currently in his game, he does not have to provide it for you. You are free to not play his game.
I find it mildly disturbing that you don't think that quicksaves necessitate any design changes. The short term game has to be made more difficult in order to keep up, while not making it impossible for the people who don't save as often. People are more likely to blow past certain parts of the game, which need to be identified, so that undue effort is not expended on the graphic and sound design there. Why put extra effort when a segment's going to get save-stated past?
Pretty much this.
Mornington Crescent.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Just make sure you read it all at once; there's no checkpoints in case you die half way through.
Also don't quick save, that would ruin the suspense.
Actually, TRIII was worse
The original Tomb Raider was what you just described; a blue crystal at a predetermined point, and you can use it once to save your game there.
In Tomb Raider II, they let you save any and everywhere. Craziness! Why not just stick with that?
In Tomb Raider III, you pick up save crystals at predetermined points, but it adds them to your inventory. You can then use a save crystal to save anywhere. So if I have three save crystals in my inventory, I can only save my game three times wherever I choose to.
I wonder if you will ever realise that this is force.
I don't think you will. You seem to have automagically reasoned to yourself that denying someone a game indirectly is not force. Indirect force is not force, apparently.
And yes, this is what you are doing.
You are being extremely hypocritical you know, I find it very hard to take your arguments seriously at this point.