i just realised this has probably been suggested a lot… sorry in advance!
Exactly dude… If I wanna save my game, then I should be able to save my damn game 
Completely understand the logic behind the suggestions though. I mean it’s a balance and trade-off between creating a realistic and challenging game, yet potentially limiting players enjoyment and experiences; versus freedom. Which may result in players losing that whole sense of action and consequence, or the consequences lacking any real substance because the outcomes themselves can be altered or changed through a simple load.
Either way, I’m a save addict. And my preference is to save and save often. In this way I always feel that I get the most out of a game, being able to change my experiences as I go without having to necessarily replay through a large section just to see what different actions or dialogue might bring.
But that’s just my opinion…
2 Likes
I think there should be save spots similar to far cry 2… you have to go to a town and say theres a certain area you can save at mannually
“Your game” is it, eh?
I dont actually believe that it is my game (or that it will be mine after I finally get it).
Do not get me wrong, I am also a “saver”, I tend to save several times in few minutes just to find an ideal starting point if I were to die in long fighting sequence.
One of my most used function in Witcher 3 is “quick save”.
But you know what? I am filled with excitement if I imagine not having an option to save/load the game.
Just the fact that you know that you cannot save/load it to change your mind later or to try infinite times makes you really think about what you are doing.
And again I agree that leaving out "save anywhere, anytime " option might repel some players and lead to the game’s demise, but what I am thinking about is the artistic value.
An artist wants to tell a message to others, he wants to show people his idea, his concept, design. He shows people what he wants to show.
Does Warhorse wants to make this game a game of looking behind corners of your decisions before you decide or do they want this game to be cruel world similar to reality where you cannot really predict the outcome of your decisions?
In this sense the save/load option is making thes game sci-fi, because you are simply peeking onto the future.
My point is that at the end of the day Warhorse should decide what they game should be like and this poll just shows them how different or similar their opinion is to the comunity’s.
Now keep in mind that I am not trying to convince anyone to support the third option. Just to think about that before condemning it to hell.
If we are afraid to try new things in games, what does it tell about us?
2 Likes
Clearly you misunderstood me. So allow me to elaborate to alleviate any such misunderstandings;
A particular copy of a game I purchase then becomes mine. But I’m in no way claiming ownership over the content, development or distribution of said game when making such a statement. Merely that it is then my right as a consumer to play and experience that game however I wish, within the confines and restrictions of the medium and the mechanics that facilitate it.
Better?
1 Like
Oh, I understood you well.
I am saying that when you buy the game you do not own it. You own a license allowing you to play it.
Yes it is your right to experience the game however you wish in the boundaries defined by the developer/owner.
But, you cannot experience a product in a way the product does not allow. As you cannot fly with a car.
But let’s not spam here as it does not really matter to this topic. (well it kinda does, but it does not put as anywhere further)
I personally find the Skyrim system to be the best for the honest reason that it allows me to pickup and play from where I last left off without worrying about the last checkpoint or autosave trigger.
I think such a system is downright terrible. What if you have to leave the game quickly because you have to deal with real life stuff (e.g. children) and you don’t have time to go to a “save spot”? Systems like that only existed because of old-gen console shortcomings in terms of hardware power and not because it was a good idea in the first place.
As for the autosave system I think the option is kind of “vague”. There are several different forms of autosave systems. For example in a game like Assassin’s Creed every action you perform is automatically saved (e.g. picking a lock) while in a game like GTA V only missions are autosaved. But both games are pretty linear without much freedom. As I’ve said before in an RPG I have doubts about such a system because it’s error-prone. If for example a certain combination of quests and actions is bugged and your autosave spot is corrupted you’re screwed. That would be a worst case scenario but it’s possible (and it happens fairly often in autosave only games, sadly). So I’m not in favor of such an “autosave”, “savespot” or similar system. The more freedom you have and the more savegames you can create the more secure I feel that my progression isn’t lost.
But maybe a “dual” system would be possible at well, a system that combines “immersion/lore-friendly saves” and “real world backup saves”. In such a system you usually need a bed to save the game. So if you are in a town or village you have to go to the inn and spend some coins for a bed and if you are in the wilderness you have to make a campfire (amount of campfires could be limited by difficulty options in the settings). You can then save the game like usually and create as many savegames you like. That’s the imersion/lore-friendly part of the system. On top of that I would include a “save and exit” functionality that works as backup if you have to leave the game quickly and can’t make a campfire or go to the inn first. In that situation you’d start at the point you’ve left the game again but it would only work if you exit the game which would prevent savegame-spamming e.g. for certain lockpicks.
So that’s probably the system I prefer right now. It has everything I value: “immersion/lore-friendliness” (due to needing a bed/campfire), “bug/error-security” (due to being able to create as many savegames as you like) and “real-life-security” (due to being able to “save and exit” the game at any time without requiring a bed/campfire).
4 Likes
There would always be SAVE AND EXIT. Thats for sure.
6 Likes
that means this game isnt meant for you
I am for the first option, because it allows the most freedom which is essential in an open world game. And I am as hell gonna tackle the hardcore difficulty. It sounds delicious as it sounds already. 
Yes, this will allow players to exploit some mechanics, but those who hate that option can always choose not to use it.
So for FREEEDOOOM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/35277212.jpg
1 Like
1: Being albe to save anytime but not anywhere… maybe saving only at our place or at any church, limited to
one slot or 2.
2: Am not in Gamification.
3: Im ok with this if you see it fit.
If you add full saving i hope it will come only in lower dificulty level. (if any?)
Anyway i vote #3 I like the save potion and beer idea. Maybe go confess your sins at the church like a good christian
1 Like
We should really consider creating poll with beer saving option…
1 Like
cool way better option imo
Kingdom Come Delieverance Hardcore Mode,
die and you will lost all your savegames!
I prefer a Anywhere+Autosave in combination with Gamefication!?
(You can enable/disable autosaves!)
1 Like
Normal Mode - You can save anywhere, anytime, except for during dialogs and combat. You have the option to turn auto-save (10-20 min intervals) on or off.
Hardcore Mode - You can save anytime you want, anywhere you want, outside of dialogs and combat, BUT you can only save twice during an in-game day cycle (meaning, 24 hours; also, is it 1 hour = 1 minute??), and you can only save if you have slept the previous day and/or eaten the current day. Auto-save is disabled. If you die, it loads back up your last saved game.
^ The reason why I suggest this hardcore mode method is because there are other benefits to eating and sleeping, in regards to stamina, reaction time, etc., and I’d rather my game saving abilities be tied into my natural tendency to want to eat and sleep, as opposed to feeling obligated to eat and sleep in order to save (meaning, only being able to save prior or immediately after sleeping).
The hardcore aspect of it is then tied mainly to the limitation of two a day, which allows you to have some leeway to take certain chances here and there, but mainly forces you to be more calculated in your decision making as opposed to 100% calculated (which isn’t 100% realistic). It also makes it so you have to stick with a lot of your choices or be forced to revert back to a save that could be a ways back in regards to playing time.
Honestly I really don’t like the idea of a hardcore difficulty that does this. You might say it’s an option but meh it doesn’t strike me as a good idea for an RPG.
If you’re playing a story focused game you want to sometimes go back to important story moments just to experience again, despite making the same choices.
Quite frankly I’d vastly prefer it if there no difficulty levels at and no autosave only system
I think the benefit to having this system as an option as it allows you to play through the story and path that you’re paving, and to stick with your decisions — good and bad – as it makes a more interesting and dynamic story. Problem with most RPG players is they use game saves as a crutch when something doesn’t go exactly the way they planned.
Having a hardcore mode kind of stops people from doing this, especially for those who have weak discipline. I think it’s good to have as an option.
Why does it matter if players reload? That should be their decision not enforced through a difficulty mode by the developer and if people want to see alternative options without having to play the entire game then that should be there.
I feel it’s just difficulty for difficulty’s sake. I get it some people enjoy hardcore options, but they really don’t add much to a game if they’re added as difficulty options.