Death Penalty and Saved Games [poll]

[Badunius]

so what? broken stuff and file corruptions have nothing with game/save mechanics.

I guess this sort of thing has never happened to you in any game.

yep. once. in Max Payne, afair, saved a second before getting a headshot =) so, yes, something like this can happen... once... in fifteen years.

I don't like to use save/load as most ultimate weapon in any game, it's just boring.

A badly designed game will remain boring. You could run through all of Bioshock Vita-Chamber scumming, and that's an auto-save slot. Unlimited, auto, doesn't matter, bad design means bad design.

sure. bad design is bad design, still it have nothing with save mechanics.

still, as I have mentioned before, autosave+named save in specific area (ranger center) will be enough.

[paultakeda]

sure. bad design is bad design, still it have nothing with save mechanics.

Correct, the game balance and design has nothing to do with save mechanics, so there's no reason to limit saves at all, so why spend resources to do so?

[Badunius]

sure. bad design is bad design, still it have nothing with save mechanics.

Correct, the game balance and design has nothing to do with save mechanics, so there's no reason to limit saves at all, so why spend resources to do so?

so the very topic is incorrect, there should be two separate threads one about death penalty and another about game saves.

[kierun]

I would vote for a choice at the start of the game as this would please everyone.

Personally, I would not take a "one save" game since I may want to "split" my game play between two different choices. If it takes 20 hours to get to that choice, then it's 20 hours of my life that I have to waste replaying the same actions as before. Maybe some otaku have the time for this, I have not.

[paultakeda]

sure. bad design is bad design, still it have nothing with save mechanics.

Correct, the game balance and design has nothing to do with save mechanics, so there's no reason to limit saves at all, so why spend resources to do so?

so the very topic is incorrect, there should be two separate threads one about death penalty and another about game saves.

As far as I'm concerned the topic mixes two concepts, yes.

[Brother None]

so the very topic is incorrect, there should be two separate threads one about death penalty and another about game saves.

Considering this is an inXile-created topic...maybe? This is one very specific topic John wanted to ask about. It does conflate multiple subjects, yes, that does not make it "incorrect", it's just a way of framing the debate, in this case by conflating two different issue. I do realize that makes discussion more difficult, yes, but it doesn't make it pointless.

[nitrium]

Unless there is a way to absolutely 100% guarantee that save game corruption is impossible, including a power outage while saving, a single save game slot sounds like a very, very bad idea to me. I for one have never played a complex RPG where I did not experience a corrupt save at least once during the campaign. Then there are show-stopper quest bugs, where with a single save you couldn't go back to a time when the bug wasn't there, and be forced to wait for a patch. I guess most people on this thread are thinking Wasteland 2 will be totally perfect on release, with no quest bugs and no corrupted saves possible...

[Badunius]

so the very topic is incorrect, there should be two separate threads one about death penalty and another about game saves.

Considering this is an inXile-created topic...maybe? This is one very specific topic John wanted to ask about. It does conflate multiple subjects, yes, that does not make it "incorrect", it's just a way of framing the debate, in this case by conflating two different issue. I do realize that makes discussion more difficult, yes, but it doesn't make it pointless.

I didn't mean it's pointless, I mean that it's confusing => causing more pointless debates

EDT
But it doesn't matter, because as far as I can see there's majority for kindergarten-style gameplay (no-penalties+save scumming)

[paultakeda]

causing more pointless debates

That's 90% of the internet, and I'm being generous.

The poll asks a specific question and for me, my choice for option 4 is based on save mechanics being independent of game balance and I'd rather resources be spent elsewhere than on limiting save context. Someone else may choose the same option 4 for different reasons, even a reason someone may object to (save-scumming). The poll's a poll. How we choose is not the poll.

[Woolfe]

causing more pointless debates

That's 90% of the internet, and I'm being generous.

The poll asks a specific question and for me, my choice for option 4 is based on save mechanics being independent of game balance and I'd rather resources be spent elsewhere than on limiting save context. Someone else may choose the same option 4 for different reasons, even a reason someone may object to (save-scumming). The poll's a poll. How we choose is not the poll.

What an argument on the internet, thats just ridiculous, everyone agrees on the internet, and here is why.......

[Badunius]

sure, you go, you vote, and you get Obama/Putin/Kadafi/whatever

EDT

causing more pointless debates

That's 90% of the internet, and I'm being generous.

The poll asks a specific question and for me, my choice for option 4 is based on save mechanics being independent of game balance

— I've shot you down!
— No! I use my super-power! Rrrrreload!

sure, it's all about mechanics...

[Banana_Baboon]

Specific save opportunities sounds about right. The inability to save during combat situations or during critical scenarios, like timed quests or events, for instance near the end of Fallout, enriches the gameplay experience.

P.S - No BBcode for spoiler tags?

[mina86]

Unless there is a way to absolutely 100% guarantee that save game corruption is impossible, including a power outage while saving

Actually, power outage is unrelated. You can have one save slot and be “power outage safe”. You do that by saving to a temporary file and performing atomic rename, which any save operating system implements.

— I've shot you down!
— No! I use my super-power! Rrrrreload!

sure, it's all about mechanics...

Then don't reload if you don't like it and just STFU.

[BlackGauntlet]

— I've shot you down!
— No! I use my super-power! Rrrrreload!

Highlighted keyword.
It's yours to use or abuse.

[kira]

I think that unlimited saves at anytime is best. Just think of the NMA threads involving Ironman mode Fallout runs. Fallout had unlimited saves with numerous slots but the players chose to enforce the harshness of death on themselves.

Nothing is fun when you're forced to do it.(or you could go ahead and include a hardcore mode akin to diablo 2)

[jonny_p66]

Remembered this from Syndicate Wars (Bullfrog/EA)

This would be purely an optional mode for people who want to try something a bit different and something extremely challenging and nerve racking.

Basically you can start a game with a realistic difficulty (so similair results to being shot for you as for a bad guy), and the game auto saves when anything significant happens, and there is no selective reload. So if someone dies, that's it, the're dead.

If your party dies, you have to start the game again. So fairly extreme but easy to implement and entirely optional. It was very very hard in Syndicate Wars because the missions were so finicky, but in an rpg there might be more opportunity for controlling risk, I don't know.

It would probably be an option best suited to re-playing the game, for experts to really get a proper challenge on. There could be a special achievement of some kind for finishing the game in this mode.

I think it would add a lot of fun to playing the game, and it would be therapautic to play for people who have quick-save-itis (constant quick-save-ing) because there would be no need to save manually at all during play.

[Enclave]

I've never seen the point in adding something like this, something that you can enforce on yourself.

Additionally, you've inspired me to go into the "What to Avoid" part of the forum and make a topic saying to avoid achievements. They're one of the many banes of the industry now if you ask me.

[suz]

To be honest limiting saving to certain times/areas is the only sucky option.

Everything else is self restraint.
People who like permadeath and won't get permadeath can restrict themselves.
People who don't like permadeath but get permadeath can copy away save files as they land.

So it's a matter of what's more convenient, while I wouldn't mind either I'm certainly not going to start over with permadeath. Failed horribly? I'll copy back the save file and use my rrrrreload superpower for sure

[lietu]

In my view no game should ever make you play with an annoying savegame system.

Most people don't like playing with "one slot" and heavy penalties, but then there are some that do.

I personally would prefer an option when starting a new game for "Allowed save slots: Unlimited / One" and "Ironman mode: On / Off", where Ironman would disable save & load during combat, and autosave if someone dies.

Even people who DO like the challenge, shouldn't go with a single-save, because games do bug, especially large ones. Often if you only play with one save slot and encounter a bug that prevents you from continuing, you end up having to restart the game, or end up so annoyed that you stop playing completely. So at least the auto-save system should know how to do backups etc. properly, but I'll create another thread about that.

[Game_Exile]

Even people who DO like the challenge, shouldn't go with a single-save, because games do bug, especially large ones.

Good point lietu, though it's not really a strong argument for balancing the game around unlimited save/reloads or haphazardly based on plot or whatever. And the devs shouldn't be releasing a horribly buggy game, anyway.