ok, lets agree on that we dont agree.
If you think that it is not OK for developers to design their game freely, then there is not much else to talk about. Because that is what you are saying:
(of course it is OK for autor to do that)
And I basicaly said I am not against more options two replies ago.
I donât understand why thereâs so much arguing here.
Make it an option. End of argument.
For those who donât want saves to have some degree of restriction, can you really not understand that if you CANâT spam your saves/reload that you would approach situations differently? If you cannot comprehend that, then why the hell are you arguing so much? You donât even understand the inherent argument FOR restricted saves.
I am curious why the second option is behind? It is not limiting in any way. It is rewarding when you donât load. Whoever wants a challenge can play hardcore with auto-saves only. I donât see any good arguments against it yet.
One more case of two people bashing one another over two points that are both right, being just essentially apples and oranges.
Warhorse is a small fresh studio that struggled a lot to even make the game happen a still needs it to succeed on the market. The crowdfinding will not cover that. Any polls and discussions here represent only a small group of the most concerned fans and supporters, many of which are hardcore niché gamers projecting their very personal gaming demands (which go unsatisfied elsewhere) into this project (I could list myself among those too) and radically differ from mainstream demands.
But even though I would like a more demanding game - is making a game highly restrictive in a single specific way that would necessarily make less people play it and even finish it the right point? (Especially if you are making a continous seriesâŠ)
I recently fell in love with one brilliant game called Invisible Inc. One of the things that make it brilliant is that ontop of several base difficulty settings (which tend to go from relatively serious to absolutely hideous) it offers a fantastic set of adjustible gameplay settings that allow you to tailor your very own difficulty setting in a wide variety of ways.
The point that this shows is - optionality is pure gold!
Not sure if KCD would benefit from completely adjustible difficulty settings (probably not), but a range of pre-set difficulty options that would entail a decreasing range of save options would be a good win-win situation.
Easy - unlimited fireplace player saves, 5 cyclic autosaves, 1 reusable quicksave
Medium - 5 fireplace player saves, 3 autosaves, 3 fireplace-renewable quicksaves
Hard - 1 autosave, 1 fireplace-renewable quicksave
Medieval - 1 autosave (self-deletable?)
And feel free to pick your choiceâŠ
Not really a good option in my opinion⊠What if I want to meet hardest enemies, have huge challenges, but still want to save whenever I want? I am screwedâŠ
At this time, I really think that unlimited saving and good quest and story design is best way to go.
I also think that nowadays player should be able to save whenever wherever he wants, otherwise its annoying. I also agree with the argument that this game would benefit from some mechanism preventing from spoiling loads. To me, second option is balanced the best and of course more options are always welcomed.
That would be the case if the difficulty level would change anything about the âdifficultyâ of enemies. I donât think that will be the case in KCD, so far it always gave me the impression that this game aims for more of a DarkSouls-ish kind of gameplay - each enemy having âhis ownâ difficulty that you have to find a way around.
I wuld like a Savegame Mechanik like M&B there u have juste one save for One Charcter.
and u can not quit without saving. means all u say, and do in the World can not be take back. U must live with the Konsequenses of u doing.
I go for option #4 - Give players the option to play a roguelike mode where you can only save at each chapter or big milestone. Then give us an option for casual play mode where you can save wherever whenever.
I would prefer autosave only once when you go to bed at the end of the day.
I donât like gamification XP bonuses, nor do I like it when you can save before any real important decision that will affect your game.
ProkyBrambora, sorry but you are just wrong.
Saying that developers should just make the game as they want and not care if the players like the options they are given is a stupid way to make a game.
Of course a single player game should have every possible option available. The more options, the happier the players. The happier the players the more games sold.
Well, I disagree.
But I am not going to argue anymore.
But if i remember correctly I never said that they should not care about players. I said that it is their decision to make and their vision to fulfil.
It was implied by what you said. 
No what I implied was that they doesn have to care about players. Not that they shouldnât.
Hi,
I voted for option 2. But what about a special skill like âRespectâ or âAuraâ. As long as you do not save the skill will grow. With this skill you can receive some goodies like present from folks or cheaper weapons or special clothesâŠ
There is very little difference.
If they donât care about our opinion, they could do very badly.
That is a marginal difference.
This can go both ways. If they will care only for our opinion the game could go very badly too.
I am not necessarily taking about saving.Just in general.
Of course to make a big pile of money the developer might want to do everything the customer wants. But some thing just does not work and customer/player almost always knows nothing about game design (again talking in general).
That is why it is best for developer to have a vision of the game, learn how his vision is recieved and then go by it.
Of course developer should laways use his head and when there is a good idea from the ranks of players and it fits his image he should use it.
Now as far as the saving options goes. I would be much happier if no poll was made and we were presented with system Warhorse came up with.
Because this poll simply solves nothing. Only that optional saving systems are preffered.
But for me I would love if there was just one option how to save (being it either of the three), because then there would be a unity of players. They would all encouter similar (if not the same) problems and they could talk about it, curse it, love it.
But when you present several options, then the players will be divided. The hardcore players will despise the casuals and vice-versa.
Well, it might not be that dramatical, but the fact is that while playing the same game, different people would have different impressions of that game.
And so from this point of view I would preffer more drastical saving system (2nd and 3rd option).
I am not sure that recieving goods/gifts from NPCs would be the best way. Because game strives for a lot of immersion and recieving items in game because you did not load does break that.
But anyway. You character has a stat called Charisma. This stat determines how will the people see you and behave around you.
Charisma is mostly determined by how you look.
The difference is, I never even implied that they should just go for our opinions.
My main point is, try to give the players a good game by not putting in features that will piss off your main base.
It is a known fact that most players hate not being able to save when they want.
Then Iâm glad you are not making the game.
Options are a players happy place.
It is a single player game.
What unity? Divided how?
So, your issue is that different players might have different impressions of the game?
Hate to break it to you, but that will happen no matter what. Also, why is that a problem?
It is not an issue or a problem.
As I said, that is just what I would prefer.
Why? Because of unity, I like unity.
Neither did I, that they should not care about our opinions
So there is no (or little) difference between what I and you said.
