Minimizing Save scumming. Or is it too much of a hassle?

[TrashMan]

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.

 

 

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?

[TrashMan]

So? If somebody finds it amusing to reload a dozen times until the dice roll his way, so be it. I really don't care about how other people choose to play since it has no impact on me. Limiting saving does have an impact on me so I say it's not worth the hassle.

 

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.

Edited October 8, 2012 by TrashMan

[Nakia]

One reason I like to be able to save when I want to is because I have had Windows suddenly restart without warning. This does happen rarely but the timing is always bad. The ability to reload a save game can be cheesy but it really should be the choice of the player as to how he or she wishes to play the game. If you couldn't save in dungeons what happens when you have a mega dungeon? Will you be able to save as you move from level to level or not? Getting half way through a large or ong quest and then have something go wrong, player death, party wiped out, CTD, restart of computer, whatever can be very frustrating.

 

What happens to someone new to game playing if they can't save at certain times? How frustrated might someone get? Not everyone playing a game is an expert. A game is for fun.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I've played most PC CRPG out there, and more or less free saving has been the case for most of them. My opinion: I think free saving should be part of normal mode, as it were. Ironman mode is in, and it has one save only. But why not add a mode in the middle ground in-between?

It could use something like Diablo 2's check point system. As a modder I know it's easy to implement. A few triggers laid out wisely in the game and keep check of the party's position and direction, voila! A checkpoint save PE! I'm sure OE can add it if if enough people want such a system.

[aramk]

There is absolutely no reason to limit saving. The argument provided in favour of this are just plain stupid.

 

The didactic argument is the worst, pulled from the insane depths of some bottomless cheetohs bag. Apparently, we need to "teach" players how to play the game, and a few self-annointed blowhards are the arbiters of The Right Way for players to play "True RPGs". No thanks friends, I'd like to control my own experience here. I want to try impossible battles for the fun of it and save before battles that I want replay later. If a battle is too hard, I'll decide whether I run away, reload and try again, or just reload and skip. Hell, I redid the Twisted Rune Battle twice because it was damn hard and just plain fun to do. Now some people want to take that ability away from me, because I'm not playing the game the way they would play it? Ridiculous.

 

In any case, there is already a penalty for reloading. It's the need to actually redo the battle again. If someone wants to replay a battle 10 times, if they find that fun, that's their business.

 

As for the "mood" argument, well there is Iron Man mode for you moody individuals, but this game isn't Dark Souls where the dieing is an intrinsic part of the story and the atmosphere. That sort of atmospheric mechanic never has been in any of the games motivating this title. Just deal with it.

[aramk]

So? If somebody finds it amusing to reload a dozen times until the dice roll his way, so be it. I really don't care about how other people choose to play since it has no impact on me. Limiting saving does have an impact on me so I say it's not worth the hassle.

 

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.

 

Right, so despite that fact that most people are able to control their experiences, your inability to do so means the rest of us are worse off? Once again, this is your problem, not anyone elses. Did you click reroll 1000 times at the start of BG1? Did you save before every spell memorization? Who the hell cares. I didn't do either, but I'm not shoving it down people's throat and saying that my way of playing is best. I set the boundaries of my experience based on what I find enjoyable and challenging. These games give me the freedom to do that. This idea that everyone has to play the same way is dumb in the extreme.

 

In any case, from the sounds of it you actually prefer cheesy tactics and sytem exploits. If you didn't, why are you even tempted? Are you a repressed video gamer, yearning to play games in the way you truly find enjoyable, but wracked by some deep guilt that you are somehow a lesser person for doing so? If you really need the firm hand of the school master guiding your experience, Iron Man mode is suitably strict that you'll be punished for any sort of gameplay trangression you make.

[Abtacha]

CRPG will never reach the the level of PnP games, as long as there are players like that.

 

Has it ever even occurred to you that CRPGs and PnP RPGs are *gasp* different?

A good DM won't just kill off characters because of a bad roll, a computer game doesn't care.

 

Let me save whenever I want; and if I choose to exploit that to make sure I don't fail skill checks than that's my "problem" and none of your business.

If a developer does not want me to reload upon the death of a character they have to make it worth it for me. Either through gameplay mechanics or narrative impact. Forcing me to deal with the death of an interesting character because I was unlucky with the die rolls in combat by either playing on as if the character never existed or replaying from the last savepoint is not good gamedesign, it's just frustrating.

[Minttunator]

I guess I'm not old school in thinking thus, but I believe people should be allowed to save and load when they want to. Don't like save-scumming? Don't do it.

 

Besides, an Ironman mode has already been announced, that should be pretty sufficient for those of us that like that sort of challenge.

[TrashMan]

Right, so despite that fact that most people are able to control their experiences, your inability to do so means the rest of us are worse off?

 

Hahahahaha!!!!

That's rich!

Most people can't control themselves.

 

Now I can (most of the time anyway). But I still hate the existence of that flaw.

Yes, I hate it. It impacts me because it exists.

 

Get it now?

I AM worse off because of it, just like you are "worse off" if it isn't there.

 

 

Once again, this is your problem, not anyone elses. Did you click reroll 1000 times at the start of BG1? Did you save before every spell memorization? Who the hell cares. I didn't do either, but I'm not shoving it down people's throat and saying that my way of playing is best. I set the boundaries of my experience based on what I find enjoyable and challenging. These games give me the freedom to do that. This idea that everyone has to play the same way is dumb in the extreme.

 

Actually it isn't. For any game there is a right and wrong way to play it. You might say that as long as you are having fun it doesn't matter. And that is true to a point.

But you don't play a sneaking game like Thief like you would play Doom. You don't rush into rooms Rambo style. Every genre, every game type, has a specific style of play it's aiming that.

 

CRPG should be about rolepalying. PROPER roleplaying.

 

I fail to see how playing smart = playing dumb.

 

 

In any case, from the sounds of it you actually prefer cheesy tactics and sytem exploits. If you didn't, why are you even tempted? Are you a repressed video gamer, yearning to play games in the way you truly find enjoyable, but wracked by some deep guilt that you are somehow a lesser person for doing so? If you really need the firm hand of the school master guiding your experience, Iron Man mode is suitably strict that you'll be punished for any sort of gameplay trangression you make.

 

Spare me the fake psycological/intelectual posturing.

 

I have EVERY much as much right to hate save game exploits as you have to hate a non-explotable systems.

[TrashMan]

There is absolutely no reason to limit saving. The argument provided in favour of this are just plain stupid.

 

The didactic argument is the worst, pulled from the insane depths of some bottomless cheetohs bag. Apparently, we need to "teach" players how to play the game, and a few self-annointed blowhards are the arbiters of The Right Way for players to play "True RPGs". No thanks friends, I'd like to control my own experience here. I want to try impossible battles for the fun of it and save before battles that I want replay later. If a battle is too hard, I'll decide whether I run away, reload and try again, or just reload and skip. Hell, I redid the Twisted Rune Battle twice because it was damn hard and just plain fun to do. Now some people want to take that ability away from me, because I'm not playing the game the way they would play it? Ridiculous.

 

 

Except no one is taking that abiltiy away from you. Because you still have plenty of opportunities to save.

[TrashMan]

CRPG will never reach the the level of PnP games, as long as there are players like that.

 

Has it ever even occurred to you that CRPGs and PnP RPGs are *gasp* different?

A good DM won't just kill off characters because of a bad roll, a computer game doesn't care.

 

Not a problem, as CRPG's in general are far more forgiving.

[TrashMan]

And if you stil lthink that it doesn't affect anyone, let me give you this example: Roge/Thief.

 

A calss that is skill-based. A class whos purpose and strength is rendered mostly poinltess by save-scumming (something, many, many will do).

 

What need is there for scouting when you can just save, enter a room, check whos' there and re-load?

What need is there for searching for traps when you can just reload?

What need is htere for disabling traps if oyu can save, check is the chest is traped or not and what's in it, and re-load, then force open just a chest that has something valubale? Or in case loot is random, re-laod till you get better loot?

 

All of this leads to people complainign that rouges/thiefs are useless (as evidenced by the rogue thread) which forces the develoeprs to turn rogues into combat-heavy classes.

 

So don't tell me it doesn't influence my game, because the entire encounter and class design is influenced by save-scumming.

I see the effects in my game. Therefore it influences me.

[kenup]

Right, so despite that fact that most people are able to control their experiences, your inability to do so means the rest of us are worse off?

 

Hahahahaha!!!!

That's rich!

Most people can't control themselves.

 

Now I can (most of the time anyway). But I still hate the existence of that flaw.

Yes, I hate it. It impacts me because it exists.

 

Get it now?

I AM worse off because of it, just like you are "worse off" if it isn't there.

Then you, and anyone who can't control themselves(me included in some cases), should just try to control their save scumming. What is the point of resisting to do something that isn't available?

 

There is no point in limiting save functions, if there isn't some actual limiter(memory, self-imposed challenge, roguelike, dead is dead playthroughs), If you are playing the game wrong, you are playing it wrong, you will learn(or not) eventually. No limitations on saving will change it and there are alternate ways to cheat, if someone uses save-reload as a cheating method. And most importantly saves are there for convenience, because not everyone can wait until the next save point or whatever, they are not gameplay mechanics.

 

And bad game mechanics like completely random skill checks, are not a reason against scumming.

[Rabain]

If the system is identical to the IE games I will be happy, you can save at any time so long as you are not in combat.

 

I don't really like the system Trashman seems to be implying where you are arbitrarily punished by the game design because they think you shouldn't die unless you are being stupid. That is basically what you are saying.

 

If I save my game before opening a door that I have no idea what is behind, then to me that is good design and a good idea on my behalf. If I die because I wasn't expecting something that is behind the door then I will be very happy I saved the game. I would be nothing but pissed off if the game forced me back to some save 15 minutes before the door, down 3 levels, to fight through 20 mobs just to get back to the door and try again.

 

That is not punishing death, that is just punishing for no reason at all. It implies that every combat is possible to beat 1st time every time which means either combat will be boring and not challenging or I am required to be perfect in combat every time.

 

I don't mind dying and having to do a fight 5 or 6 times, I expect it, I like challenging combat. Fighting my way back to that combat just because I can't save before it is not a challenge, it is not a punishment, it is ONLY frustrating.

[Lady Evenstar]

Folks should be able to save (almost) whenever they wish. Limited saves were one of the negatives that caused me not to buy Alpha Protocol (along with not being able to play a woman, shooter mechanics, and QTEs). The IE games did not feature them. There is no reason to include them in PE.

 

The role of an entertainment provider is not parental, and save scumming is only one of many reasons a player may wish to save with or without quitting. I almost always save if I'm going to need to pause a game for a significant time period.

[mute688]

And if you stil lthink that it doesn't affect anyone, let me give you this example: Roge/Thief.

 

A calss that is skill-based. A class whos purpose and strength is rendered mostly poinltess by save-scumming (something, many, many will do).

 

What need is there for scouting when you can just save, enter a room, check whos' there and re-load?

What need is there for searching for traps when you can just reload?

What need is htere for disabling traps if oyu can save, check is the chest is traped or not and what's in it, and re-load, then force open just a chest that has something valubale? Or in case loot is random, re-laod till you get better loot?

 

All of this leads to people complainign that rouges/thiefs are useless (as evidenced by the rogue thread) which forces the develoeprs to turn rogues into combat-heavy classes.

 

So don't tell me it doesn't influence my game, because the entire encounter and class design is influenced by save-scumming.

I see the effects in my game. Therefore it influences me.

 

Your complaint isn't about a faulty game mechanic, it's about people. The example you gave doesn't show that the game mechanic is badly designed, it shows that people will play the game the way they want to. Exactly who, in your example, would be complaining that the rogue class is useless? The people who are using it the way you describe? I doubt it. They obviously want to play that way. Or would it be people like yourself who read threads about people playing that way and feel you have to tell them how wrong they are for not playing how you play?

 

I usually try to finish my first playthrough of a game accepting everything as it comes. A party member dies? So be it. I'll continue to play with the consequences. I lose a battle? I keep playing. After that first playthrough, though, I like to try different things. I like to experiment with different ways of completing quests, of winning battles, trying new skills and talents at level up, different classes, different races. If the devs institute save points I will withdraw my $280 and spend it elsewhere. Why? Because your view on how the save system should be instituted would ruin any further playthroughs for me and I have no intention of spending that sort of money on a game I would only play once at best.

 

I have no problem with accepting the consequences in a game despite knowing I can undo any mistakes by simple reloading a save. I don't do that on my first playthrough though. I choose to not reload. I can also choose to reload if I want. How is it that you can't? How is it that you need to limit my choices to feel better about your lack of discipline? Maybe it's not the rest of us that have a problem.

 

*manly fist bump*

Edited October 8, 2012 by mute688

[TrashMan]

And if you stil lthink that it doesn't affect anyone, let me give you this example: Roge/Thief.

 

A calss that is skill-based. A class whos purpose and strength is rendered mostly poinltess by save-scumming (something, many, many will do).

 

What need is there for scouting when you can just save, enter a room, check whos' there and re-load?

What need is there for searching for traps when you can just reload?

What need is htere for disabling traps if oyu can save, check is the chest is traped or not and what's in it, and re-load, then force open just a chest that has something valubale? Or in case loot is random, re-laod till you get better loot?

 

All of this leads to people complainign that rouges/thiefs are useless (as evidenced by the rogue thread) which forces the develoeprs to turn rogues into combat-heavy classes.

 

So don't tell me it doesn't influence my game, because the entire encounter and class design is influenced by save-scumming.

I see the effects in my game. Therefore it influences me.

 

Your complaint isn't about a faulty game mechanic, it's about people. The example you gave doesn't show that the game mechanic is badly designed, it shows that people will play the game the way they want to. Exactly who, in your example, would be complaining that the rogue class is useless? The people who are using it the way you describe? I doubt it. They obviously want to play that way. Or would it be people like yourself who read threads about people playing that way and feel you have to tell them how wrong they are for not playing how you play?

 

I usually try to finish my first playthrough of a game accepting everything as it comes. A party member dies? So be it. I'll continue to play with the consequences. I lose a battle? I keep playing. After that first playthrough, though, I like to try different things. I like to experiment with different ways of completing quests, of winning battles, trying new skills and talents at level up, different classes, different races. If the devs institute save points I will withdraw my $280 and spend it elsewhere. Why? Because your view on how the save system should be instituted would ruin any further playthroughs for me and I have no intention of spending that sort of money on a game I would only play once at best.

 

I have no problem with accepting the consequences in a game despite knowing I can undo any mistakes by simple reloading a save. I don't do that on my first playthrough though. I choose to not reload. I can also choose to reload if I want. How is it that you can't? How is it that you need to limit my choices to feel better about your lack of discipline? Maybe it's not the rest of us that have a problem.

 

*manly fist bump*

 

 

No, it shows that people will complain because they abuse and game developers will design the game around them. Which sucks for people whole don't abuse the system.

 

I have already proven my point with all previous IE games and examples. Theives are more and more pushed towards being a combat-class.

Deny that if you can.

If you cannot acccept that peoples habbits DO influence game design and that it can steer the game into a direction I find bad, then we have nothing totalk about. At all.

 

You kep haring about self-control, but that is hardly the main issue. And assuming it was the main issue, I could argue that the game shouldn't tempt me in the first palce.

 

 

If you are so utterly shallow and egoistical that you will drop your support if the game ends up having fixed save points, go ahead.

Nothing wrong with fixed save poitns - as many, many games with save points proved time and time again.

 

Heck, I myself often forget to save nad have to re-do a few battles. No big deal. At worst a mild irritation. If THAT is enough for you to never play the game again, then the game wasn't that good to begin with.

[aramk]

Hahahahaha!!!!

That's rich!

Most people can't control themselves.

 

Now I can (most of the time anyway). But I still hate the existence of that flaw.

Yes, I hate it. It impacts me because it exists.

 

Get it now?

I AM worse off because of it, just like you are "worse off" if it isn't there.

 

 

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.

 

CRPG should be about rolepalying. PROPER roleplaying.

 

I fail to see how playing smart = playing dumb.

 

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.

 

Spare me the fake psycological/intelectual posturing.

 

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

 

Broken game mechanics are not my choice.

You can talk all you want. Changes nothing.

You just mask your preferences under the fake norion of "freedom" to give it more validity.

 

 

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.

 

You.

There is proper roleplaying (depending on the setting). Period.

 

Calling my ideas illusionary, but at the same time haning onto your own like a holy scripture. Irony.

 

 

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.

 

Sarcasm is for the weak.

 

And there's plenty of game designers who did make sucesfull games that are compeltely opposite of your wishes. Which proves you utterly wrong.

[mute688]

No, it shows that people will complain because they abuse and game developers will design the game around them. Which sucks for people whole don't abuse the system.

 

I have already proven my point with all previous IE games and examples. Theives are more and more pushed towards being a combat-class.

Deny that if you can.

If you cannot acccept that peoples habbits DO influence game design and that it can steer the game into a direction I find bad, then we have nothing totalk about. At all.

 

You kep haring about self-control, but that is hardly the main issue. And assuming it was the main issue, I could argue that the game shouldn't tempt me in the first palce.

 

 

If you are so utterly shallow and egoistical that you will drop your support if the game ends up having fixed save points, go ahead.

Nothing wrong with fixed save poitns - as many, many games with save points proved time and time again.

 

Heck, I myself often forget to save nad have to re-do a few battles. No big deal. At worst a mild irritation. If THAT is enough for you to never play the game again, then the game wasn't that good to begin with.

 

I actually don't accept that theives were pushed more and more to a combat class, but just for fun, let's assume you are right. You still have nothing to indicate it is because of the save system. I can think of a few reasons for a developer to push towards a more combat orientated thief class that have nothing to do with how and when players save their game.

 

Are you sure you want to use "the game shouldn't tempt me in the first place" as an argument? Really? Especially after saying let's assume self-control is the issue. If you are tempted by the game, then it is your issue, not mine, and I shouldn't be penalised for your shortcomings. Without limited save points, we can both play in the way we want. With save points you get to play how you want, but it's just tough sh*t for myself and others like me.

 

Shallow and egotistical? When it comes to single player games....you bet. I play how I want, I'll cheat when I want, I'll save when I want and I'll also choose not to do those things when I want. And guess what, my preference also allows you to play how you want, Your preference limits my play options merely because you want your hand held, so who exactly is shallow and egotistical?

 

But you are right. We have nothing to discuss. At all.

[DocDoomII]

I still don't understand.

Is this discussion general or about P:E?

Because in P:E there will be a mode called Trial of Iron or something along the way, and that is like ToEE where if you wiped, then the save got wiped too. And you can't save whenever you want, if I'm not mistaken.

 

So just turn that on and stop arguing.

Edited October 8, 2012 by DocDoomII

[Arkeus]

I still don't understand.

Is this discussion general or about P:E?

Because in P:E there will be a mode called Trial of Iron or something along the way, and that is like ToEE where if you wiped, then the save got wiped too. And you can't save whenever you want, if I'm not mistaken.

 

So just turn that on and stop arguing.

 

What he is arguing for isn't trial of ironman or something, but encouraging the play to live with the consequences of his actions in a normal game.

 

It's a very delicate balance, but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly (messed a dialog response, messed up a quest, have a companion die and need to sell gear to rez, etc).

 

OTOH, it's VERY hard to encourage the players to accept the consequences of their choices without it feeling stifling for the average player.

[ogrezilla]

but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly

is it? If its important to you, that's something you can easily avoid doing. But there's no good reason why anything I do should be important to anyone else.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[HangedMan]

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.

 

 

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.

So? If somebody finds it amusing to reload a dozen times until the dice roll his way, so be it. I really don't care about how other people choose to play since it has no impact on me. Limiting saving does have an impact on me so I say it's not worth the hassle.

 

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.

Hahahahaha!!!!

That's rich!

Most people can't control themselves.

 

Now I can (most of the time anyway). But I still hate the existence of that flaw.

Yes, I hate it. It impacts me because it exists.

 

Get it now?

I AM worse off because of it, just like you are "worse off" if it isn't there.

 

 

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.

 

CRPG should be about rolepalying. PROPER roleplaying.

 

I fail to see how playing smart = playing dumb.

 

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.

 

Spare me the fake psycological/intelectual posturing.

 

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.

[Arkeus]

but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly

is it? If its important to you, that's something you can easily avoid doing. But there's no good reason why anything I do should be important to anyone else.

 

Ok, let me qualify this, then: It's very important for everyone as long as the develloppers actually put multiple choices and mechanics for death.

 

If it's a linear game without a death mechanic, then yes it's not important.

 

But if it's a game with branching choices with consequences? then yes, it's ridiculously important that the players are encouraged to actually, you know, experience those consequences and multiple branch, or else most of the game is created for nothing.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Arkeus