I haven’t been following the thread super closely, but it doesn’t save on exit, then?
Not yet. They say they couldn’t include it in the game because of technical reasons. But they’re trying to work on including it in a patch. But apparently the game was designed with it in mind.
That seems reasonable. I think with a patch (or two?) and this feature implemented I’ll be happy to dive in with both feet.
…and if you think before you act, especially before you fight, and still you are killed or something bad happens, making you lose the last 30 minutes played? Is that acceptable? Because it sure as hell it isn’t for me.
Or the game just crashes, or a quest is broken not letting you advance?
Nanny state gaming :)
Thanks!, got it :D
Found this post on the internet. apparently theres different ways to solve problems?
It’s an assumption that time spent gaming that leads to a fail state is time ‘lost.’
Back in zee golden days of Pac Man and such, all gaming led to a fail state, therefore all gaming time was ‘lost.’
That’s weak man, and you know it. It’s not like you leveled up Ms Pac Man or found loot or basically had anything to lose except time spent.
Back to talking about the game.
I made zero progress playing last night, but I had a lot of fun trying to steal stuff from shops. I ended up getting killed every time (those guards sure can run). The pickpocketing mini-game is a pretty cool idea. After all of that though I have to wonder if playing a straight up rogue is a viable play style given how difficult and sometimes random it can be… can you lock yourself out of main quest content by pissing off the wrong people?
I played this for like 1 hour yesterday and I did not like it.
I had a lot of fun though, but only due to the horrid “acting” and body language.
This guy says “no” and is quiet for 3 seconds before suddenly shaking his head vigorously. Lol.
I hated the fighting mechanics and honestly, do we REALLY need such a realistic game that we have to remember to feed them and wash them and god damn LEARN them to bandage their feet?
No thanks.
It’s kind of beautiful though.
Gameplay is still gameplay. Any game wherein time spent can be seen as retroactively wasted is IMO a game you shouldn’t have been playing in the first place.
I agree completely - People tend to forget that the game and playtime is the reward, not the in-game rewards. Those aren’t, in any meaningful way, real.
I’ll walk this back a bit. Baby related stress. Yes, it depends on the genre. But I think the assumption that only gameplay which results in saved progress ‘counts’ is an interesting one to examine. I also think that mentality, taken too far, can lead to gameplay such as in MMOs where you do it because ‘it feels like a job.’
Also, for the record, I have no opinion on KC:D’s save system. I just don’t like absolutist arguments against restricted save, and I don’t like the management of a gameplay flow to be left entirely up to me when it’s part of the designer’s job.
There’s a reason why roguelikes–which rigidly control saving–have non-modal combat, a key-press that lets your avatar auto-explore a level faster than the human eye can follow, are paced so tightly, and generally don’t have periods of exploring barren empty spaces without interesting encounters.
That is, some games are built from the ground up (from the very first design document) to add value to losing progress and starting again.
Of course there is inherent value in the moment-to-moment gameplay even if a game like Kingdom Come crashes and you have to start from the beginning but I think the posts above took that theory too far. For most games the larger sense of value is also tied to progression and not repetition of earlier parts (even if the gameplay is fun).
It’s like trying to read Moby Dick and randomly at chapters 3, 8, 15, etc. you have to start at page 1 again. Sure reading Melville’s prose is inherently valuable and enjoyable but that is tied to a sense of progression through a narrative arc.
Your first sentence informs the first. Nobody would argue that only saved progress ever counts, it’s goig to depend on the type of game. You mguys gut find someone who would bemoan the fact that you can’t save your progress in a round of Ms Pac Man, but they’d be missing the point. Just like if someone said you don’t need to save anywhere in a sprawling RPG this would also be missing the point. It’s taking an option away. Some folks don’t care, well and good. But it makes me less interested in the game, personally.
Repeating can be fine in a game of pure gameplay like Pacman or Tetris. But in a rpg a good part of that 30 minutes piece will be:
-walking to quest giver in village A
-stealing again unguarded chest 2 and 8 from the village
-walking to forest B
-talking with npc 23 (same dialogue you experienced before)
-trading with npc 44 for getting X and Y (same trading as you did before)
-fighting an easy encounter with two bandits in the forest, and looting their bodies.
Nothing from that list is especially thrilling to repeat a second time.
edit: and even in an action game I hate repeating stuff, as usually it’s a specific fight where I’m stuck, but losing progress can make me repeat that fight, and the previous 8 easier fights that are mostly filler.
I don’t find it acceptable either. Unlimited saving is the only way I like.
For any console player - can one just stop playing and let their console go to sleep, and when they return the game will still be active and let you pick up where you left off? I know I can’t do this with any game on my computer as sleep mode is all borked. But curious for console players if that might help alleviate concern just a little?
Balderdash! Having to replay the basic intro section of a game because the save did not work is a waste for many people. Who are you to say what others should consider a waste of time?