Oh, without a doubt, the lack of discipline is on the gamer. But that’s why it’s a requested feature. The developer is helping the gamer.
Most gamers don’t have any discipline when it comes to exploiting things, be it game glitches, etc., or, in this situation, spamming the save button so you can revert back to an earlier version if GASP you do something and change your mind, or if you die, etc. etc.
I like all 3 options. I would prefer to have a choice before starting a new game and choose one I enjoy most. It would be great for new players and also experienced players looking for more realism.
Can we get options to choose either one at the beginning of the game ? Like in M&B…
lots of people like easy going and relaxed with all the saving and spoonfeeding…
I on the other hand always play on the hardest difficulties and not being able to save/Multiplesave etc etc gives the game a lot more immersion. so I’d like have no save option on the hardest difficulties…
and I disagree with people that say “oh if you don’t wanna save just don’t save”… that’s not how it works once you know you can save you will do so… but when you can’t its a whole different ball game.
If it wants to compete with the elder scrolls it should use a similar save system
I recommend leaving the elder scrolls out of the discussion (Some people here get angry otherwise 
)
It doesn’t want to compete with it and is a totally different game. It’s compared to it and the Witcher because that’s what most people know when they think of RPG.
Dig a bit into the game and you may get a feeling for what Kingdom Come is and which playstyle (“savestyle”) you’d prefer for yourself 
I do not need autosave but I want to save when I need to save. So if you make different options for the player to save, I’m ok with this if I get my option to save everywhere at anytime.
I wan’t to save when I want to.
Gamification is word so ugly my eyes hurt. Anyway, since I’m long from school and have usually also other business to do IRL, bonificating time spent in game is not a good option for me.
But I do not like autosaves either. Especially ARMA3 autosaving is tragic - while it is possible approach target as you wish, the autosaves doesn’t respect that - meaning you’ll get killed immediately after autosaving. It also rewrites previous autosave so there’s no way back.
So TIME Autosaves (±10 min, hopefully without any loading) + Anywhere autosaves should be enough.
I very much agree to this. Not being able to save anywhere doesn’t seem to contribute to anything but player frustration, and doing anything else for a game like this would be a momentarily charming gimmick that will soon turn annoying.
Anywhere+ Autosaves. I play on the hardest difficulty and after spending a long time racking up kills I like to be able to save and take a breath knowing that my accomplishment is safe.
How about the first option and some kind of a timer that counts down until one can load the previously saved game. Counter would increase the more you spam the load button.
You have to let people make there own choice.
Even hard should have the option to save when you want…or the option to never save.
Hardcore difficulty with autosaves + save&exit option.
I have wife and kids and I can’t rely on autosaves-only, but I wish to play hardcore 
In my opinon “Anywhere + Gamification” is the most interesting, BUT I think also it has to have a Limitation, so that somebody is not forced to Play 24hours a day. Let´s say, for example, you earn a Gamification after 1, 2 and the highest after 3 hours without saving. And what could the Gamifcation be? Money, Reputation, Skill … ?
I personally favor saving at all times, places, and circumstances, whenver the player wants.
And to be honest, this is a single-player game. What people do in the privacy of their own single–player games is nobody’s business but their own. If people want to save whenver they want, let them. If you don’t, then don’t. But don’t impose your views on other people just to make yourself feel superior.
The gamification idea is very interesting at all but it could be a bit frustrating for casual gamer. And i think one target of this game is to reach the biggest possible amount of gruops. That’s why i choosed the Anywhere + Autosave.
Dark Souls/Mount & Blade’s system (everything is autosaved, only one save file) is ideal in my opinion, as it makes me care about what happens in the game.
I see a lot of people talking about loss of progress being a negative of autosave only. This makes little sense seeing as the game would also be autosaved upon quitting.
[quote=“RoyBread, post:99, topic:23965”]
I see a lot of people talking about loss of progress being a negative of autosave only. This makes little sense seeing as the game would also be autosaved upon quitting.[/quote]
IMHO, the argument against autosave-only makes a lot of sense if the game has a main storyline with much of the content built around it. In such cases, all roads eventually lead to the same main story encounters. Thus, if you die in one of these and can’t save immediately beforehand, you definitely lose some amount of progress, either to the very beginning (only 1 autosave file) or to some arbitrary checkpoint not of your own choosing. Either way, you’re forced into repeating stuff you’ve already done to get back to the point you died, which you have to pass to see anything new. And the harder that encounter is, the more likely you are to die, so the more repetition you have to do.
The problem with such repetition is that it negatively impacts the player’s attachment to the game. Instead of everything being new and different all the way through, now much of the player’s experience is been-there-done-that mechanical grinding. Thus, the fun quotient decreases. Furthermore, no matter how much somebody might like the game, he will only want to play it more or less exclusively for some finite period of time before burning out on it and needing a break. The more repetition he has to do, the sooner this will happen, leading many folks abandoning the game prior to finishing it.
Even worse IMHO, this repetition destroys the game’s replay value by consuming it all on the 1st play-through. The more of the game the player has to repeat after death, and the more often he has to do this, the more he memorizes the content, and the more options he will try along the way in hopes of improving his odds in the main encounter that keeps killing him. Thus, when (or if) he ever finishes the game, he will see little reason ever to play it again because he already has, many times, and can quote every line of NPC dialog from start to finish.
Thus, I think devs do themselves a disservice by putting harsh limits on saves. They put a lot of work into the whole thing, much of which will go unappreciated by many players due to the grindy repetition. Further, the player base will have a high turnover due to the 1-and-done nature of gameplay, instead of being composed of longterm, highly devoted fans.
This can all be avoided by letting players save whenever they want to. Those who don’t want to take advantage of this feature have the freedom to ignore it, while it’s available for those who’d rather have it. Thus, everybody is happy and the game and its community prosper.
Well unlimited saves can also discourage repetition in some cases, e.g. I try conversation option 1, observe the outcome, reload, try conversation option 2, observe… More free save system allows to abuse this a lot more.
But I agree with you that this is not a real issue, or atleast it shouldn´t be solved by limiting saves. Best way to ensure replayability is that your decisions have much more long term impact. Thats exactly the reason why I played most favorite games of all time (Gothic2, Witcher2 and Mass Effect 2 - should I hope for KCD2) atleast three or even four times. These games have in common that every decision you take has some short term effect, but also (usually very major) long term effect, and only way to see the different outcome is to start again and try another options and choices.
For example: Your role in city in Gothic2 - guards, dragonslayer, mage influenced almost EVERYTHING, like 80% of conversations changed depending on your role, incredible even by today standards. Had to play Gothic 2 six times, one for each role in original game, and once for each role with datadisk, it was that awesome.
Witcher 2 - end of ACT1 and siding with Iorweth of Roche - changed whole act 2 completely, quests, story, characters, loot… amazing. Did four takes on W2, tried both sides, and when enhanced edition came out, tried them again smiley
Mass Effect 2 - well… you know, its mass effect, everything seemed really important, and you always felt like your choice really matters. Thats why I played ME2 six times, and ME3 only once hehe.
So if the game can achieve atleast half of what these games could deliver in this area, I think that it doesn´t really matter what save system is implemented, and in that case unlimited saves will upset smallest amount of people.
You know your argument about repetition is valid only with assumption that autosave system will be “badly” designed.
If autosaves would be well timed and would be triggered by some actions (e.g. entering city, forrest, enemy vinicity etc.) There could be little difference between autosave and classic saving options.
But then again. I believe that ideally @warhorse does not want us to have several shots at every fight or difficulty we face.
I believe that main idea is having that one shot like in real life.
It is common knowledge that the game will include “encounter quests” like in Red dead redemption.
So you could find a bandit with a chest full of treasure. Now if you know that you can try infinite times till you kill him and took is treasure, there is little excitement behind it. (And lot of repetition).
But if you have only one shot (because after autosave load you may not encounter him again) the game has suddenly completely different feel.
