It is a way too.
But some checkpoits would be there too just for example for low difficulty. I can imagine that i will start first half-hour over and over again just because i don’t get the fight system so well for exaple, but after 30-40 hours of playing is one “deadly” mistake realy bad.
I’d prefer each difficulty will have description detailed enough to let you choose properly. If you did wrong, just start again. I would hate a possibility to change diff during gameplay (and starting new act with different as well) because then every statistics will fail.
Which leads me to an idea make one level the ultimate difficulty level - a difficulty level where it all ends with your death. 
That’s the way to make everyone happy.
And then it comes to sharing on FB etc. Hey guys i finished this game in 12 hours - and the game will by itself add information about difficulty etc, so that he can’t just flex.
There’s only one thing that will lead to: Players pointlessly backtracking back into the city and out whenever they expect trouble. And restricting access to the city in any way is a terrible idea in an open-world RPG. This applies to save at any strictly dictated conditions, including making a campfire. If it’s sleeping, players will run around, looking for beds and they’ll end up sleeping 3 times a day. If it’s making campfire, expect to see a LOT of campfires around the world.
Yes, we need to punish the retards for playing a videogame they have bought with money as they enjoy! How dare they, the bastards! As for skill fadeouts… Dear lord, that’s a terrible idea. Just don’t punish player skill in an RPG more than you have to.
Eh… The fact that everybody should be able to play a game as they please aside, how do you tell if somebody quit out of rage? I turn off my games often enough unexpectadly because… You know, I have a real life. Away from the computer. Which interferes with my gaming.
If you want to talk about useless, it’s online statistics comparison in a story-focused RPG.
[quote="Fenixp, post:63, topic:6719"]
There’s only one thing that will lead to: Players pointlessly backtracking back into the city and out whenever they expect trouble. And restricting access to the city in any way is a terrible idea in an open-world RPG. This applies to save at any strictly dictated conditions, including making a campfire. If it’s sleeping, players will run around, looking for beds and they’ll end up sleeping 3 times a day. If it’s making campfire, expect to see a LOT of campfires around the world.
[/quote]
Thats why I say only at secure locations such as cities - nothing like i’ll create a checkpoint everywhere. And I even hate checkpoints like “on encounter” etc.
[quote="Fenixp, post:63, topic:6719"]
Yes, we need to punish the retards for playing a videogame they have bought with money as they enjoy! How dare they, the bastards! As for skill fadeouts… Dear lord, that’s a terrible idea. Just don’t punish player skill in an RPG more than you have to.
[/quote]
Are you a retard? Play CoD. Or try harder. Or go with lower difficulty.
[quote="Fenixp, post:63, topic:6719"]
Eh… The fact that everybody should be able to play a game as they please aside, how do you tell if somebody quit out of rage? I turn off my games often enough unexpectadly because… You know, I have a real life. Away from the computer. Which interferes with my gaming.
[/quote]
That’s why i said:
It means you can quit at any time (even during combat because of the real life) by saving, and you can load it when you come back. But if you die afterwards, you can only load “secure” checkpoint from the city for example. Nothing like you save the game just before the final hit, and reload it until you succeed.
[quote="Fenixp, post:63, topic:6719"]
If you want to talk about useless, it’s online statistics comparison in a story-focused RPG.
[/quote]
Still you can do statistics about how good fighter is the player, how much hits he got, percentage of completion and maybe things like ratio between how much he kills, sneaks or negotiate to complte quests. This guy earned Killer badge because he solved 80% quests by killing the target for example.
Yes, if you only allow saving in cities, people will keep returning to cities so they can save. It would interrupt the flow of the game, absolutely needlessly. Remember, we’re talking about an open-world game here.
I want to enjoy games I buy for my hard-earned money. So I suppose I’m a retard by your twisted definition. Incidentally, it’s quite funny how fast did we get to insults, yay!
Yes, allowing for changing save system with changing difficulty is the best way to get around the issue. While allowing for changing difficulty from options in-game. Again, my money buying the game, I want to play as I want and I refuse to waste my time by replaying if I find the game is too hard / too easy.
Or you can just disable saving during combat.
So what you actually want is achievements. Good, games with save-anywhere mechanics have achievements.
Yea, well, the list of secure location is not “final” 
Its about the idea not to make savegame everywhere. But it should definitely depend on the difficulty. For the, lets call it Saint dificulty, there will be no checkpoints at all. Only those for exiting the game, which will be instantly loaded on the next launch.
The only issue here can be power loss, so lets say you can load the savegame twice?
Sorry, it was not personal, like you. It was general. Are you retarded? Go play a game for retards (or play lowest difficulty). I don’t see any reason why every game should be for everyone. There are arcade racings for retard and simulators for those who can actualy drive.
How long does it take to find this out? I think until the first combat.
Nothing is too hard, stop whining and try harder!
Yes, but it’s not only about combat, its about breakpoint decisions as well - some realize they did wrong decision and want to change it - and this is incorrect and should not be allowed.
I’d only preserve the option to save game for quiting as described earlier - no such game has this option, and I hate it for example when I have to pick someone up and has to quit the whole progress. There is no problem in making “consume when use” savegame.
I don’t understand now. Even singleplayer game can be social. I don’t like Facebook, but sharing such info there would still be the most intelectual content. And you can compete in for example who is better duelist, who is better at solving puzzles, you can share your solution to a quest and discuss about it, and one day we will actually get some multiplayer stuff like dueling, and I can imagine “king of the hill” and such.
I can’t see any way how to put MP into storyline, but it can be separated. Kingdom Come is gonna have ultimate combat system and duels or larger-scale combats have enormous potential. I can see it happen in the future, it can all be like medieval BattleField. Imagine that! But the highest prequisity for this is it!s not connected to the story.
It doesn’t really matter TBH - we are talking about an open-world game here, not a linear game where it would be possible to place some bits where you can save the game. My point is that when you give player precise conditions of when they can save the game - whatever the conditions - players will go out of their way to replicate and abuse them. Might as well put in a save-anywhere system and save the hassle.
It’s not for everyone, it’s already limited to people who are interested in story-based RPG set in the medieval period. Limiting playerbase even more would directly harm Warehouse, which isn’t something any of us want I don’t think.
As for the insult - If you only insulted me, I’d be fine with it, but you have insulted a good chunk of people. I know, we’re on the internet and all, but I like to believe in humanity 
Not true. The first combat will probably be some sort of tutorial deal, and videogames are not exactly well known for keeping difficulty even troughout the game - it changes. When a game is well done, it gets harder to balance how player keeps getting better. However, especially open-world games, do have problems with difficulty being all over the place - some bits too hard, some bits too easy. I neither want to be frustrated by repeatedly playing the too difficult bits, nor do I want to be bored by too easy bits - that’s why I like changing difficulty mid-game. After all, the game calls itself story-focused, so I won’t be stopped by combat.
Incorrect? If you want to use that, you should be able to. If you don’t, you shouldn’t be able to. It’s as simple as that. I often make saves before important choices in RPGs so I can come back and play from that bit later on - as I said, my time is valuable. I refuse to replay more than I have to.
I’m strongly opposed to that suggestion if it would mean changing design decisions for the singleplayer game. I don’t give a damn about ladders and such - I do give a damn about playing the game I have paid for as I see fit. Regardless, even with save anywhere features and everything, you can make ladders, indicating what difficulty did people achieve different results on. It would still be an even playing field, everybody would have the same chances. Regardless, I really wish Warehouse would just put their money and resources into making the singleplayer game as good as possible instead of implementing network stats comparison and cheating prevention.
1 Like
If almost every dialoge is unique, meaning that it will end differently, you would save before every one, and as i said saiving and waiting what will happend and situation “i dont like that” is not too real, maybe you want to in real life but you cant soo, you should be responsible for every action, for things like mistake click… just add a apologize option.
And for 2 mods, most of the people will start with
- they will not enjoy it that much as they could, possibly,
- In some points of the game they would be frustrated that they did not choose 1. one
yea so feeling of misted chance even thou they enjoy it quit a lot 
idk, replies?
‘I’m really sorry I shot you in the head peasant lady. I’m glad everything is ok because I apologized.’
I know what you mean, but for some reason your response made me think of a situation like this. 
I would like to be able to save almost anywhere, except from in cut scenes.
1 Like
Did you actually read what LordCrash wrote? Let me tell you this in different way. Did you watch the Blade Runner? Its have too many different cuts that each tells different story. Broadly it is the same movie but such small changes in couple of scenes largely changes the background of lead character and overall story. I watched 2 different cuts and liked both, if i can find them i will watch other cuts too.
All successful RPGs (must)have branching story. When games have prequels those branches multiple. Some of us want to read/watch/play all versions of the stories. It isn’t save scumming when you “beat” the ACT 3 with your “cannon story” then reload a save from ACT 1 and play with different choices.
Besides in the free save method nobody force you to do it, its your choice. And it is a singleplayer game, other players play style dont effect you
Yeah, so you just want to try out all the different scenarios, to have a /watch different stories.
And yes thats your choise, I just say that I would enjoy the story more by re-plaing it, and no just changin something I wanted just to see what will happen then -Y, I also usualy watch full film just to see my favorite scene, its just the atmosphere man :P-
One more thought, I know that is not for everybody, but as i said thats my point of view. for ex. Hitman, normal/hard -save everywhere, harder option few saves until end of the mission, hardest usualy none. Hitman is not a typical rpg, and yes the last option of difficulty should be played after playthrough, but
again the atmosphere, my reactions, I just acted much more differently, there was no “lets try what will happen” but observation, stealth, and feeling of true hitman.
I know not everybody is like that, but if they give it a chance 
there are too many games with nearly zero difficulty, just because before the difficult part you just save, knowing whats coming, and repeating till win. And also those situations “why i didnt save it?”
And also yes, nobody force me to save it, but if it is possible, then game also count with that.
Aand for 2 possibilities, yea why not, but I always remember my friend inner fight “should i play again on harder? or should i finish the easy one?” I always say to finish what you started, but answer is usually that he is just not satisfied knowing harder version is not finished.
I know that you think “multiply playthrough, all the possibilities and so on”,
I think “atmosphere and consequences” and with “U didnt saved before every jump in mario” on my mind
Peace, sry for long post
Enemy respawn is one of the few bad things they can do to Deliverance.
I prefer NO enemy respawns at all and full ability to save manually whenever I want to.
The interest points in map can be kept alive by adding many random events, but no respawns to the already killed enemies whatsoever.
1 Like
I think for this game I’d prefer a freeze method. By “freeze method” I mean; the game saves important values when they change… ex. level-up, quest initiation/completion, and so on. And it freezes the moment when you are idle, or leave the game. The only issue is with crashes that would regress progression to a point where a value was saved on change. Regular auto-saves can fix that. For reference think Diablo 3 (progress was stored server-side, however). It is possible to circumvent a freeze (force-quitting application), ideally however cmd+q/alt f4, quit, close application, and so on should ideally initiate a process that freezes the progress. When loading the game again you start where you left off (even if that is mid-battle, can implement ‘pause’ to allow for preparation). I prefer when there is no chance for the player to go back to make changes (seeing that they aim for realism).
Of course they should let the player decide, manual, freeze, or manual + auto-save.
This can be circumvented by using a progressive saving system. It means only values that changes are saved when they change. So when you back-up your save file you do not know at which point you are in that save. This means the only reliable way to do it would be to; exit the game, back up the save, get back in and attempt whatever you saved for. Only perfectionists would do something like that, since it sort of pulls you out of the game every time you’d want to make sure you get to try again. (A work around would be to back-up automatically on file change, but this would eat a lot of space and still not give you a reliable save without exiting the game first. It could also be countered by using cache saves until game is exited).
Several games running on smartphone OSes and lately desktop OSes as well use a save system which dumps save files to ram or cache, then instructs OS to place these dumps in save folder should the game exit or crash. This is practical in an ironman/“realism” difficulty for example.
I really hope they let us use a saving system similar to that, as it would really add to the “no return” feeling that they want to give us.
Why include a save system at all?
Let’s include a “fail system” instead.
If you die it’s just over.
It works like this:
If you die in the last 10h you will get to see this:
but if you die in the first 20h this screen will come up:
What about that, huh?
1 Like
Or this one:
2 Likes
You guys must like Nintendo hard games…
Yes, but wit unrestricted saves it is your choice - You can play as with quit and save. Maybe as an optional option, like M&B …
There are many distracting elements in real life (kids, wife, … ), witch can effectively distract you and destroy your progress 
1 Like
I would definitely like a save anytime system like skyrim. Allowing me to save anytime means if for any reason I need to get off the game I don’t lose any progress or have to desperately get to a save place.