/agree 100%
In a single player game, there is absolutely no reason to limit saves.
Every player can make his own choice as to how often he wants to save.
Yes, we clearly have a different definition. I don’t think that repeating the same section is immersive (it is frustrating). But I do think that the fear of losing some progress makes it much, much more immersive. Restricting saves makes player risk less and think more and that could be used as game mechanism.
Yes, it could be done trough the difficulty and I have no problem with that as with players using cheats. My only point was that it is not clear fact that is not worthy discussion.
Also - I do not force anyone to anything, just saying my option as you do…
1 Like
But it is clear. you even say, “I have no problem with that as with players using cheats.”
In a single player game, there absolutley should be a way for players to save whenever they want. Period.
Sure, there can be settings at the beginning of the game, like “ironman” mode, where there is just auto saves, but that does not take away from the fact that saving whenever you want should ALWAYS be an option in a single player game.
I said I have no problem with it but I also have no problem if developers decide not to implement it.
No period, it is matter of game mechanics not universally good decision.
You can’t turn off stamina, hunger, bleeding and so on even though it is a single player so theoretically it doesn’t matter. But it may be part of the game design. Imagine a horror game where you can save anywhere… it’s atmosphere just vanish.
What you are arguing is preference.
You feel that a game might be ruined by the ability to save anywhere. That might be true for you. It would never be true for me.
That is the beauty of a single player game. OPTIONS. If you don’t want the option to save anytime, there should be an option to play in some kind of iornman version of the game. However, and this is very important so read carefully, there should ALWAYS be the option to save whenever you like in a single player game.
I can easily see playing a horror game where I can save anywhere. I have a hard time imagining a single player game where I can not save anywhere.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about how saving anywhere can ruin a single player game, and I will always respond, “For you, not for me”
I win in this argument, because we should both have the option to play the way we like.
If a studio actually thinks the game would be better off just appealing to some of their players and not all, they are wrong.
1 Like
Well anything is if you look at it this way. Any game mechanic.
Perhaps. But in my opinion this is true in general (which doesn’t mean that it works for entire population obviously)
Vice versa. And to say the truth, I do not care much what you will respond. Why should I?
Ehhh if you have to feel this way.
Realistic medieval non-magic, no third person view game. This project did not start as something to “appealing all” at the first place. And good design decisions eventually bring more players then attempt to appeal all.
I would have to disagree with this statement.
Many if not all of the original backers of this campaign backed because we wanted to support the unique vision WH has for their game, which was crowd funded because publishers thought it did not “Appeal” to the broader spectrum of customers in the market.
I personally would like a save anywhere option, but I also supported and continue to support this project based on WH unique vision of a realistic RPG.
From KS campaign
“with points of no return”
2 Likes
There is a huge difference between how the game is made for playing and the save feature in a single player game.
I would think you would see the difference.
What you are arguing is preference.
Well anything is if you look at it this way. Any game mechanic.
The way the game is made is the style of the game, so I agree that should be up to the Devs.
Give me one good reason saves should not be a completely open choice for a player in a single player game.
…
Frak:
You feel that a game might be ruined by the ability to save anywhere. That might be true for you. It would never be true for me.
Perhaps. But in my opinion this is true in general (which doesn’t mean that it works for entire population obviously)
Yes. That is why it is called OPTIONS.
…
Frak:
You can argue until you are blue in the face about how saving anywhere can ruin a single player game, and I will always respond, “For you, not for me”
Vice versa. And to say the truth, I do not care much what you will respond. Why should I?
What?
…
Frak:
I win in this argument, because we should both have the option to play the way we like.
Ehhh if you have to feel this way.
Again, what?
…
Frak:
If a studio actually thinks the game would be better off just appealing to some of their players and not all, they are wrong.
Realistic medieval non-magic, no third person view game. This project did not start as something to “appealing all” at the first place. And good design decisions eventually bring more players then attempt to appeal all.
So, you already have a game that will not appeal to the masses according to you, and you think the best way to make the game better is not limit choices in single player saves?
That makes no sense.
Pretty much everything has already been said, but the poll speaks for itself. A very small minority want to force people to use autosaves only. Most people want to save anywhere, while a subset want XP and skill gain boosts for not loading.
Autosaving does not prevent people save scumming. It just makes it slightly more complicated by forcing people to manually copy the save files to a backup directory rather than handling it in game.
Saving anywhere seems like the logical choice. It in no way prevents people that don’t want to save from doing so. Whether the bonus for not loading is worth spending time on to please a minority is debatable, but again, it in no way impacts either of the other two groups.
The only poor choice is forcing people to use autosaves. It inconveniences the majority for the benefit of the minority. 13% of people that voted in this poll.
The decision when and where to save, should be in the hands of the player, period. I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to the first option. If you don’t like it, then don’t use it simple as that no one is forcing you to use manual saves, but you are trying to force others not to use them.
1 Like
I gave. In short : game mechanic that makes danger more intense and thus victory more rewarding.
Yeah, opinions about game mechanics and general rules. Opinion to have or have not dragons in game is also an opinion.
That was my reaction as well, when you started about “blue i face” and vice versa means it works both ways. Also, I’m not trying to convince you as I don’t need or want everybody agrees with me.
If you really need point out “winner of the internet forum discussion” then feel free to. I already stated I have no problem being it “Easy” mode. I just insist it’s not allways good game design.
I hope it will! I’m just saying that it wasn’t their first though as they would be doing MMO on iPhone (as Dan Vávra said - or something similar). They are making as good game as they can and that should makes it popular not by welding popular choices and trends together.
That is entirely your opinion, whether i share it or not is irrelevant. You have no reason what so ever to be against the first option, other than you don’t like it. It’s quite simple if you don’t like it don’t use it.
Completely ridiculous comparison, putting Dragons in the game would make it fantasy, and completely ruin any historical accuracy or realism, giving the player more freedom with saving would not.
Just be honest, the only reason you’re opposed to the first option, is because you dislike it, and you have no practical reason to be against it. Using your logic, maces should be in the game, since i don’t like them, and I’m not going to use one.
1 Like
I never stated it is not my opinion. I also stated I have no problem with being it an option.
Partially yes, its exaggerated (though if the dragons would be just an option…). But the principle works. I can say that it would destroy immersion (as dragon wold the realism).
Thanks Freud, you got me - except you are absolutely wrong. The reason was that I’m disagree with the idea that it is always a good thing to let player save anywhere as it’s simply matter of game design as much as if the game will be realistic or not, what damage will player survive and such. Not because I would dislike saving, lol.
If you think there shouldn’t be maces… well, I’m OK with that even though I think the opposite.
Your posts clearly imply otherwise.
No it does not work at all, terrible example. You would not be forced to use manual saving, it would simply be there as an option. I can easily say any type of saving breaks immersion, because in real life if you die, you do not get to reload and try again. So lets drop the whole " manual saving breaks immersion" crap.
Sorry but this part makes no sense.
kk…
1 Like
Well as Vic once said: Every extra option in game is failure of game designer.
Saving system is definitely part of game design, and it is TOOL to push your pursued goals (immersion, fear of death, paranoia of bandits lurking behind every bush, fear of upsetting or hurting important characters).
It is completely valid option to limit saves somehow, as many and many games do this to pursue their intended goals. It just makes the stakes so much higher, and create so much tension. It certainly has its drawbacks - push the system too far, and instead of immersion you get frustration, which is one of the worst things that can happen in game, so if devs chooses to use limited save systems, they have to know what they are doing, and balance it really well for it to work.
Will this game have save anywhere system? Probably yes.
Would it be completely valid choice to have limited save system in this game? Definitely yes. Its not such nobrainer to have “save anywhere” as some of you try to imply here (if it was, there wouldn´t be this poll).
I still think that my idea of saving with bottle of beer or in pub/church only is by far the best 
beer=save potion, so immersive!
2 Likes
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder.
In a single player game, if I choose to save when I want, and you choose to save only when the game allows, then we both win.
No brainer.
So, if we both have the save option we want, the game is better. Period.
But if the developers have a vision with how the game ought to be played, and that vision involves NOT having the option to save anywhere, then suck it up and play it that way 
They already ignored the overwhelming majority that wants or doesn’t care if there’s third person. What makes you think they are going to care if a bunch of people stomp their feet for save anywhere.
This ain’t no democracy! Let’s rush the government building!!!
1 Like
Not sure if you’ve looked at the poll recently but around one third of the community opposes third person. I’m all for third person, but it’s not just a tiny minority anymore.
Only 13% of the people want autosaves only, so it would be completely ridiculous if they went with the third option. I’m quite frankly going to be pissed if i can’t save when i want, and I’m sure i wont be alone. Ive had crashing issues with KC:D since the alpha first came out, and if the problem continues when the game comes out then saving frequently will be the only way i wont lose all my progress.