HangedMan

It's a game design problem, the same way that having carsomyr in the first room of Baldur's gate 1 would bea game design problem. Sure, i can 'not use it', but it's dumb as hell to put it there when the game is actually geared toward a lower-level playthrough. As i said, it all depends on what the game is supposed to be. If it's supposed to be some kind of linear game that is also encounter-based, then sure there is no real reason to encourage the players to not load games when they make a mistake (by that, i mean having a minore character dying, or being forced to lose a quest, or being forced to use a very rare potion). However, if the game is designed for strategic gameplay as well as non-linearity, not giving an incentive to not reload is bad game design. Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so. You say it's bad game design, but, from my perspective, it isn't. Rather than repeating your point, can you please explain it to me, with as much detail as is possible? I really do want to understand here, but thus far, I am not. The issue is that, in terms of compromise (different players want different things), if there is to be only one method of saving ... then, while self-discipline isn't something we always have a lot of, all the time, it is definitely a player option to exercise it...whereas no multiple saves etc. creates a distinct lack of option. So while you're not getting what you specifically feel you need, it is, imo, the best way to handle it. The game designers are not responsible for individual's lack of gameplay self-discipline any more than an author is responsible for an individual's inability to not read the last page of the book first. Thank you. I like you. This would be a wonderful compromise. And you could have it so that you need to make your choice at the beginning of the game, and once you've selected your save option, that's it, it's stuck on that; the only way to get a new one would be to start over from scratch. That way, people won't be tempted to give themselves more saves. I read it, and thought it was a good point. Most likely, you're not getting a response because nobody has thought of how to refute it, and not refuting it would be like admitting you're right on the issue, which would weaken their stance. So, best option for them: try to ignore it, and hope it goes away. Really, that's sort of the basics of underhanded debating. I like your point, though, and would love to see the 'opposition' (Too strong a word, I think, but I can't find anything better) response.

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc. And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it". Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later". That is your problem, and I, and anyone else, should not be penalized or otherwise made to experience something less-than-enjoyable because of your problem. And that's all I'm reading here. When I read your post, I can't see anything besides "I have this problem, but I don't want to have this problem, so the game should keep me from having this problem". It's childish, and shows a lack of self-accountability on your part. Take my advice, don't use your willpower as a dump stat, if you know what I mean. If I'm mistaken, then please, I encourage you to correct me, just make sure you're concise with it.

I wonder how people around here knows the epic fight between Eric and the Dread Gazebo? I know about the Dread Gazebo, but how many people here know about the Gong?

All of those examples are things you can simply not do if they bother you. Its very easy to just not reload if you fail a pickpocket attempt. I think we want to hear examples of the save system negatively influencing other design choices that you simply can't avoid. Personally, I felt like the classic infinity engine games were designed with no thought to the save system. You played the game and you saved when you wanted. They didn't leave out traps or pickpocketing because you could just save and reload to always get the desired result. It was very easily abused, but only if you chose to abuse it. I can't think of anything that was designed to make up for the save system. Agreeing with this, and putting an emphasis on what I feel are the key points.

Ahahahaha. If anything could get another twenty out of me, it's that. Merging these two ideas would make me so happy, some people might think I have a problem.

Yeah. Really, MMO's are more like "Auto-save every single second".

Yeah. I'm sure I have a different idea of what a compromise is, compared to you, or anybody else. it's that fun part about being human. Their is no perfect. Alright, that's a fair point. I will say, however, that a console style save point system will have me seriously reconsidering my investment, and whether I recommend it to friends or not; this is a big point for me, which is why I'm less willing to compromise. Ultimately, we all make assumptions when we interpret another persons word, because we're not using a completely hard-concept language. Some of these will be dangerous. Some will not. I question the danger level of my assumption, in this case. Rogues being a combat class has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whether the game has save points or save anywhere, this has no effect on how a class is designed to operate. Or, if their is an effect, it is so slight as to be essentially not worth counting.

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage Oh, situations like those . . . that's never fun. Sorry. :\ thanks, I managed to get over it. we didn't beat it until a few days later though because we were frustrated. I know that feeling.

I'd use a common alias of mine, like "The Hanged Man". As far as messages go, I'd probably put something Dadaist out there, just to make people go "wtf?" Data protection does not bother me so much, as it is that I am just a very private person. Something like "If I knew red was green, I'd have chosen orange!"

Everone wants the game to be to their liking. Everoyne has a image of the "perfect game" and are arguing for it. I'm no different and neither are you. Anyone saying otherwise is a big fat liar. I can agree with this, even if I think your position in the rest of this discussion is laughable at best. You really have hit on a fundamental truth here. The only difference I see between you and I is that I look for compromise in most issues, whereas you seem to be stubbornly proclaiming that it's your way or no way. In the end, I know I won't have the perfect game I want. But it is enough for me to know that I have some, or even most, of what I wanted. In this case, I feel like Iron Man mode is a fair compromise for those who want an experience like you want. But the great thing about this mode, is that if people don't want to play it, then they can still enjoy the game. It's opt-in or opt-out, not you-have-no-option. And I am always going to support their being more options, rather than less. What about their Iron Man mode is detrimental to your enjoyment? The only exception I'd have is superfluously shallow things, like having a hundred choices for the text color, and the UI buttons. But, that's neither here nor there.

False dillema. For one, you can pause the game and lave the computer running, and come back later. For another, if you have a save+quit (with the save deleting itself once you continue) then that problem si effectively gone, no? I would rather not leaving a game running on my computer for hours at a time, doing nothing. At best, I'm wasting cycles that could be devoted to other things, at worst the computer will go into sleep mode despite a running program (I've had it happen before), and then the whole damn thing locks up, forcing me to reset by unplugging, which can damage the stability of my computer; something I like to avoid doing, for obvious reasons. Save and quit is a fine mechanic for me. I am cool with that, if I can save anywhere I want. I'll likely do many Ironman playthroughs of the game, but the thing is, the mode you want to play in has already been stated as a definite thing, as someone else has already pointed out. You are already going to get to opt into what you want; trying to shoehorn and force other people into doing things your way is little more than bullying at this point. That is where you are wrong. A distincively flawed and abusable system does have an impact on me. Not only am I constatnly aware of the flaw, but the temptation to abuse it constatnly flaunted into my face. I might as well flaunt pictures of gorgeous, sexy women in front of your face and tell you to not get a boner. If entire classes (rouges) and abilities loose their worth because of such a glaring exploit, then the system is flawed. Period. I'm constantly aware of flaws in games, too. I overanalyze things; that's par for the course for me. A long time ago, however, I learned not to bother by it. You can, too. But either way, you're basically saying that because you have one little problem, the game should be catered specifically to you, and presumably anybody that has a similar problem. This reeks of childishness and entitlement. Yeah, whose vearing into folk pyschology now,? Who gives a **** whether people can or cannot "control" themselves. People play however they want to play. I don't "control" myself. I play in the way I find most enjoyable. For me, that invovles no cheese tactics, and a decent challenge. The way you talk about entertainment and gaming is seriously messed up. Even accepting this warped sense of value, your "condition" is down to you. If having this feature is worse for you, then it is on the basis of your own character. It's a choice you choose not to make. Accept some personal responsibility for your own "flaws" rather reducing the freedom of others. Removing the ability to save anywhere removes the choice others wish to make. Whose the intellectual poseur now? There is no such thing as "proper" roleplaying. Even in PnP, each individual and each group decides how they want to play the game. You need to abandon these illusionary ideas of "proper" and "real" that have no intrinsinc meaning outside your own head. I guess you missed the sarcasm. Your post is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Luckily no game designer in the world is stupid enough to listen to your ideas.

I don't think anyone suggesting the removal of the "save&exit"-function. Such a function should always exist and it should allow you to quit at any time, but if you continue again the save-file is deleted. Savescumming is not exploiting the save-function to get a desirable result; that's just called saving and reloading. Savescumming is when you circumvent the deletion of a save-files from a continue: http://www.urbandict...rm=savescumming Wow, seriously? I never knew that. Not have a lot of people, apparently, with how often I see people referring to the reload-until-things-work-out as savescumming. Guess it's one of those common misnomers? I know! All of these people that aren't as hardcore as we are want to do stuff so lamely! Obviously, we, being awesome people, should make it impossible for them to be wimpy wimps, and furthermore, they really should thank us for it, too, right bro?

If somebody wants to waste a half hour of time re-rolling to get a success on a difficult check, then let 'em, is what I say. One thing I love the most about gaming on the pc is the fact that I can save anywhere I want, so if I need to step away from the computer, I can; I don't want to be forced to either give up on progress in my game, or have to run late because I needed another five or ten minutes to push forward or backtrack to a save point. It's highly annoying. If people don't want to save scum, then they should have the willpower to tell themselves "No, I will not save scum". That's what I do, all the time. If you're afraid of being "tempted" into save scumming, then really, you should work on your self-control, instead of asking people to make it so you can't do something.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Aux. I have said, myself, that I would love for this to be Arcanum 2; I know it won't be, but I hope it takes a lot of the good features from that game. You could buy it again off Good Old Games for about ten bucks. Not that expensive, plus, you can support the fairly awesome thing they've got going on.

I like this idea. As far as specifics go, I'm sadly not feeling very creative right now. Might pop back in tomorrow with some ideas, though.

I'd love to see something like SPECIAL. I've always been fond of the SPECIAL system, to the point where I even made my own rip off of it for a homebrew, which ended up being called SCARED, as it was for a horror-style game. Also, this. This right here echoes my own thoughts on the matter.

I'm hoping to see at least one Utilitarian country or civilization of some sort.

I'd say, for everything, about 70% character skill and 30% player skill.

All sides want an enjoyable game. We just can't come to a group consensus on what "enjoyable" is.

I like this. I would love to see this implemented.

Their's a reason why I'm a hell of a lot less active on here. It's tiresome to read most peoples comments. Really, this whole MB is starting to remind me of why it is I limit myself to interacting with a very specific set of people online. People just need to learn how to chill out, and deal with things from a rational standpoint. And sure, I can understand the emotional investment. I'm financially and emotionally invested in this, too. But, I'm not going to allow that to be an excuse for me to act the part of a blithering idiot.

For big assaults and the like, I think a split party system might be best. In tactics Ogre: knight of Lodis, their were a few battles where two battles went on simultaneously. You fought one battle, then the next. Units deployed in the first battle could not be used in the second. Something tot hat effect would be neat. Suppose you have companions 1-11 and the hero. Say you, and companions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 decide to do a frontal assault on a castle, because you're a chivalric warrior like that (*or whatever reason you want). Meanwhile, Companion 6 is like "You know, I think I'll just lead the rest of the guys here to the back gate. We can cause a ruckus, make things easier on you, hero." And at some points during your frontal attack, their will be a "Meanwhile..." and hop over to the second party. As an option, people could choose to avoid the second party hopping, and just have the computer abstract it all out. Anywho, enough rambling from me.

here here! We shall die as men!

I think critical hits should cause instant-death. That could be rare, and lucky indeed. I mean, when I think of a critical hit, I think of someone getting a knife shoved through their throat, or taking a crossbow bolt to the head, right between the eyes. How about, to make crits special, they insta-kill (and for the hardcore nuts, this means enemies can one shot you, too!), and possibly play some sort of screaming-in-anguish sound effect as the creature or person is violently and horrifically slain. That, to me, is a hell of a lot better than a shaking screen. That just makes me feel nauseous. And I'm not in the habit of playing games that make me want to vomit, you know? But, even after all that, I don't see the harm in it, as long as it can be toggled off.

Taiga.