Poll: Saving game - how, when, where, how often?

Gameplay
#169

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 donā€™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.

#170

The decision when and where to save, should be in the hands of the player, period. Iā€™m not sure why anyone would be opposed to the first option. If you donā€™t like it, then donā€™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
#171

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 ā€œblue i faceā€ and vice versa means it works both ways. Also, Iā€™m not trying to convince you as I donā€™t need or want everybody agrees with me.

If you really need point out ā€œwinner of the internet forum discussionā€ then feel free to. I already stated I have no problem being it ā€œEasyā€ mode. I just insist itā€™s not allways good game design.

I hope it will! Iā€™m just saying that it wasnā€™t their first though as they would be doing MMO on iPhone (as Dan VĆ”vra 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.

#172

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 donā€™t like it. Itā€™s quite simple if you donā€™t like it donā€™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 youā€™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 donā€™t like them, and Iā€™m not going to use one.

1 Like
#173

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 optionā€¦). 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 Iā€™m disagree with the idea that it is always a good thing to let player save anywhere as itā€™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 shouldnā€™t be macesā€¦ well, Iā€™m OK with that even though I think the opposite.

#174

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.

#175

kkā€¦

1 Like
#176

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 ā€œsave anywhereā€ as some of you try to imply here (if it was, there wouldnĀ“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 :smiley: beer=save potion, so immersive!

2 Likes
#177

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.

#178

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 :slightly_smiling:

They already ignored the overwhelming majority that wants or doesnā€™t care if thereā€™s third person. What makes you think they are going to care if a bunch of people stomp their feet for save anywhere.

This ainā€™t no democracy! Letā€™s rush the government building!!!

1 Like
#179

Not sure if youā€™ve looked at the poll recently but around one third of the community opposes third person. Iā€™m all for third person, but itā€™s not just a tiny minority anymore.

Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 10.24.17 AM.png499Ɨ762 82.5 KB

Only 13% of the people want autosaves only, so it would be completely ridiculous if they went with the third option. Iā€™m quite frankly going to be pissed if i canā€™t save when i want, and Iā€™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.

#180

Thereā€™s a big difference between wanting something and not caring. If you look at the numbers, only a minority, a quarter, want third person. A full third are some kind of ā€œpuristsā€ that donā€™t want other people to have nice things, another third are okay with it, while a tiny minority will reserve judgement until they see how it plays.

Itā€™s blatantly inaccurate to say that a majority want third person. Thatā€™s a big difference to only a tiny minority (13%) not wanting other people to be able to save just because they donā€™t want to.

#181

I found quite shocking what Viktor said about TPV:
ā€œHow much would cost a simple option for the third persion view? I would say 2 millions of dollars. Perhaps even 5ā€. Source: https://youtu.be/c05VsgIc7sI
Was it serious or just another joke?

Than he explains that more menu options sometimes makes the game design worse.
But to stay on the topic, I dont think that this would be true even for saving system. I certainly want to be allowed to save anywhere / anytime. Unless they have designed some type of new interesting saving mechanics and the game would not work otherwise without it. Not just by a players preference but that games rules would break. In Xcom2 playing normally or with iron mode is 2 different experiences and I want them both. I like that 2nd poll option mechanics helping me to resist loading though.

#182

Good thing I didnā€™t say that, and I said the majority want OR DONā€™T CARE if thereā€™s third person.

#183

autosaves only!

#184

This is article about upcoming survival mode in fallout 4, and it has some nice gamification idea for saving.
Basically - you gain ā€œadrenalineā€ which increases your damage every time you kill somebody - and this adrenaline is reset by sleeping in bed for atleast one hour - which is also the only way to save your game.
This could really be nice basis for hardcode or ā€œironmanā€ mode :slight_smile:

For other aspects of this mode in fallout - it makes combat much quicker and deadly by damage for players aswell as for enemies (probably makes oneshot kills possible in case of headshots?), there will also be new food and sleep mechanics, no automatic regeneration of broken limbs or decrease of radiation poisining, ammo now has weigth, no fast travel, slower respawn of everything in worldā€¦
Nice changes to F4 for hardcore fans, and that adrenaline system could be somewhat useful even for KCD :slight_smile:

1 Like
#185

Hi there, if Iā€™m not mistaken saving has not been implemented yet or is it just me who doesnā€™t find the way to do it ?

I also have frequent crashes to desktop and without any kind of saving itā€™s quite troublesomeā€¦

#186

I will make no bones about itā€“if I can not save anytime, I will NOT play the game, period. My life is too hectic for me to not be able to walk away from the game on a moments notice, and if that means I have to lose all I did after some random ā€œautosaveā€ point, it would NOT be a game worth playing, as I do get interrupted often. This game is shaping up as one that will take a lot of time to accomplish most things (no map markers for most things, no hand-holding, lots of time spent in random searching for trivial gains, lots of ā€˜scavenger huntā€™ mechanics etc.) so for me, autosave only would make my game progression glacially slowā€“meaning frustration, and ultimately rejection.

For me, nothing is more important than this question. If this will be autosave only, trying to force the player to play uninterrupted until some random future point, then please tell me now so I do not waste any more time (or money) on a game I will never, ever play!

Also, I do not care for gamification or any other perks beyond normal game play that gives advantages either. Do this amount of content, get this much experience, period. Why should it matter whether you did it in eight one-hour sessions, or one eight-hour slogfest?

#187

I absolutely donĀ“t get how everybody misses the point so badā€¦

If it would have autosaves only, it would also have AUTOMATIC AUTO SAVE WHEN YOU QUIT THE GAME. In fact, the game already had this since alpha. So no progress loss even if you have only 10 minutes to play.
But since we can all see that beta already has save anywhere system, I donĀ“t see a point of this thread anymore :slight_smile:

1 Like
#188

I guess it depends on what type autosaves are used. I didnā€™t see where anyone said it would auto save every time you quit, but I could have missed it. There are a lot of different ā€œautosavesā€ and games that limit where you can save. Final Fantasy ?? comes to mind, as you have to reach a certain spot on the map before you can save, and auto saves only take place at times like before a big battle. As I only started playing the game a few days ago, and am still catching up on reading the forums, I wanted to make sure I made my preference known on issues important to me. This is one of those. Neither did I see any dev post that settled the matter, and we all know things in beta can certainly change. More infoā€“going in both directionsā€“is always a good thing.

Ā© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz