Agree to disagree. 
At the end of the day for the sake of the games success something along option 1 is likely necessary, as it will probably appeal to the broadest array of players while still providing options for those who care. Wanting to implement anything else would most likely warrant actual market research (even on a small scale) to see how people find it in practice. [As a first title I think game success is especially critical in terms of design choices to ensure further development]
Concepts like option two could work if you could find the right balance, though it could still be risky.
Though if this kind of option was implemented something like a number of saves, or a time restriction on how often you can manually save or where you can save would work better then something that effects gameplay mechanics directly.
2 Likes
I think the best approach is to allow save everywhere with the option of a hardcore mode because it allows for more people who have different play styles to enjoy themselves. It works to your benefit to allow more options for players to choose the realism/difficulty for themselves. Limiting the game to hardcore only simply limits the number of people you an sell the game to.
On save everywhere + gamification, itās a smart idea for encouraging long term playability but personally I would prefer not to see such a mechanic in the game. It would cheapen the experience for me because I want to earn every experience point I get, not just manage log off time for the most efficiency.
Thanks for asking for our opinion and keep up the great work!
I have a real problem with autosave-only. The problem is when you hit a difficulty spike (like a particularly tough fight), possibly preceded by an unskippable cutscene (the horror!). You will almost certainly die several times before you learn how to overcome the obstacle - and that means replaying all the stuff between the last autosave and the start of the actual fight over and over again. I inevitably end up zooming through the same content that Iāve already covered 5 minutes earlier, which is a huge immersion-breaker in any game (not to mention, entirely unrealistic). Please give me the option to save right before a fight and spare me the tedium of replaying lengthy sections of the game over and over.
That said, I do like the gamification option, as it gives you some incentive not to load for every minor sub-optimal outcome. Iām sure not everyone would agree, though - some people get quite obsessive about collecting the maximum amount of XP from everything.
for the love of god please put in saves anywhere. i just wasted 4 hours of gaming because my head got cut of cause i never was trained to use a sword. before that i had to restart the game because it froze and i had to replay 2 hours of gameplay. al because of not beeing able to save anywhere ot not enough autosaves! please implent them ASAP, not going to play much more untill that is in. not wasting time because i have to replay the same part over and over because of silly reasons. I know this is an alpha but that is so not neededā¦
I think why most people dont want autosaves is because how stupidly they are put in videogames. Sometimes it is realy obvious that creators of the game wanted you to play it as long as possible even tho you could sometimes lose your sanity :D. ItĀ“s really irritating when you can save only before some long unskippable cutscene or not right after you beat the boss but instead throwing more enemies at you just to mess with you and only AFTER THAT you are able to save. Autosaves should be put in rationaly RIGHT AFTER the cutscenes or some hard part in the game or even during that part. You mentioned you dont want people to take advantage of being able to save anywhere, anytime so there could be some autosave right after you for example break a lockpick or open a chest. Plus autosaving every 5 minutes or so, so you dont have to replay the game very long after some unexpected crash or something. Only autosaves are good thing if you dont want player to abuse the save system but it should be done pretty often and only then i personally wouldnt mind not being able to save. Unfortunately as you stated you have very complicated system of npc daily chores and saving would take a long time so i dont think if such autosaving system is possible in this game.
No, they shouldnāt. It really depends on what you want to achieve. Nothing aggainst casual game experience without immersion but makret is full of it tight now.
It has nothing to do with being casual. It has everything to do with how far you want to force people to backtrack when they make a mistake, want to change something, or lose power. In the console realm, where hardware limitations often made dynamic saving impossible, the checkpoint was born. There is no reason for a PC title to have the same limitations.
To me, this is exactly how casual the game is. Being able to reload if the player wants to change his actions or decisions and so effectively nullified possible penalties. Itās like when World of Warcraft take away the full lot from PvP.
Operation Flashpoint had checkpoints and one quicksave. Vietcong has 3 saves per mission and that definetly werenāt console games. Perhaps technical limitation is the reason why it is in console games often but there is a really good reason to not let player save anytime in games in general.
1 Like
I think we have different definitions of what it means to be casual. As far as immersion goes though, what part of repeating the same difficult section over and over is immersive to you? I find it frustrating. Of course if you like doing that, feel free to do a full ironman run with no saving at all, but donāt force everyone else to.
/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 donāt 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 doā¦
1 Like
But it is clear. you even say, āI have no problem with that as with players using cheats.ā
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 āironmanā 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 canāt turn off stamina, hunger, bleeding and so on even though it is a single player so theoretically it doesnāt matter. But it may be part of the game design. Imagine a horror game where you can save anywhereā¦ itās 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 donāt 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, āFor you, not for meā
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 doesnāt 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 āappealing allā 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 āAppealā 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
āwith points of no returnā
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.
ā¦
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 doesnāt mean that it works for entire population obviously)
Yes. That is why it is called OPTIONS.
ā¦
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, āFor you, not for meā
Vice versa. And to say the truth, I do not care much what you will respond. Why should I?
What?
ā¦
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?
ā¦
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 āappealing allā 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.