ZylonBane on 27/5/2009 at 03:57
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Unrestricted quicksaving removes almost all challenge from most reflex-based games. There is really no argument here.
And yet, people ARE challenged by reflex-based games with save-anywhere. Explain that.
Taffer36 on 27/5/2009 at 04:09
Wormrat's on the right idea, although I may not agree with his exact wording. The argument that "I JUST WANT MORE CHOICES!" is shit, and the only way to prove so is by giving other examples:
Why do games have ammo? It's terrible! What's the point of ammo? Just let me use a gun until I want to dispose of it, not until some arbitrary number runs out that the game decides! People might abuse it but as long as we have self-control to put the weapon down when the game gets too easy it's fine, right?
The amount of backlash my post got (which I expected) and my subsequent responses are kind of making it sound like I'm hellbent against quicksaves; I'm NOT. I play several games that utilize them and I think they work well in certain games. That said, though, I do think that the system itself is more deeply flawed than many assume and I'm explaining and defending why I think so.
ZylonBane on 27/5/2009 at 04:33
Quote Posted by Taffer36
I play several games that utilize them and I think they work well in certain games. That said, though, I do think that the system itself is more deeply flawed than many assume and I'm explaining and defending why I think so.
If the system was deeply flawed, most people would complain about save-anywhere ruining their games. In FACT, very few people complain about save-anywhere. It's pretty much only the people with zero self-control such as yourself who have a problem with it. You really don't realize what a minority you're in, do you?
Taffer36 on 27/5/2009 at 04:42
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
If the system was deeply flawed, most people would complain about save-anywhere ruining their games. In FACT, very few people complain about save-anywhere. It's pretty much only the people with zero self-control such as yourself who have a problem with it. You really don't realize what a minority you're in, do you?
I understand that I'm clearly in the minority. I knew it even before posting. In fact, the part where I said "more deeply flawed than MANY assume" pretty much shows you that I know it. What does that have to do with anything?
I'm still waiting for a retort to my point about ammo. I'm not being cocky, I'm wholeheartedly curious what it would be.
ZylonBane on 27/5/2009 at 04:48
Quote Posted by Taffer36
I understand that I'm clearly in the minority. I knew it even before posting. In fact, the part where I said "more deeply flawed than MANY assume" pretty much shows you that I know it.
No, that really doesn't mean the same thing at all. You seem to think that save-anywhere is flawed for everyone, when that clearly is not the case.
Taffer36 on 27/5/2009 at 05:04
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
No, that really doesn't mean the same thing at all. You seem to think that save-anywhere is flawed for everyone, when that clearly is not the case.
I'm saying that the system is flawed because of what it allows the player to do, but I did not say that it is flawed in that it breaks the game. PC players have grown accustomed to being able to save at any moment, and I'm saying that this ability removes suspense and is overall a cheap power to endow the player with and that there are better alternatives for games that are not pure open-world.
But no one is suddenly going to say, "OH MY GOD THE SUSPENSE IS GONE WHAT WAS I THINKING!" Nor did I say that they were. You seem to think that because perhaps you or others do not believe that you spam quicksave buttons very often that you are absent from the hindered suspense and cheapness of the feature that I am describing. But my point is that I believe that having the ability to do so STILL takes away a certain amount of suspense. Checkpoints are set in stone, it's up to the designer to place them properly and you are confined to that setup. But with quicksaves no matter what the scenario, if the going gets tough you can always resort to it. And you're full of it if you don't mash that button when you foresee a potential threat ahead or if you assume that very few others do so.
This is sounding a bit rant-ish. Damnit.
Koki on 27/5/2009 at 05:23
I wouldn't want ALL games to be checkpoint-based, but the ones which require you to be a monkey should be.
Aja on 27/5/2009 at 05:52
Quote Posted by lost_soul
I used to be big into console games, but the prices of the systems have gone through the roof (not including the wii). This wouldn't be an issue if I were getting more for my money when purchasing a console, but the opposite is true. In 99% of cases, you cannot change one single aspect about the game. You cannot create your own levels, modify the gameplay, improve the graphics, or benefit from improvements that others have made over the years.
I can think of very few games where this is actually a problem for me. Unless the fix is for something game-breaking, I generally find that installing and playing user-made modifications is unnecessary at best and immersion-breaking at worst. Sure, Oblivion has seaweed now but everytime I see it I think about how I'm not playing the game as it was intended. Or else I spend hours tweaking and balancing the game to get it JUST how I want it and by that point it's no longer interesting.
Obviously most PC gamers don't feel this way, but for us lowbrows the mods just aren't worth the hassle. Thief 2 might be the only exception.
Renault on 27/5/2009 at 06:55
Quote Posted by lost_soul
Why are PCs getting cheaper and consoles getting more expensive each generation?
Most consoles are still a bargain. Try getting a 5-6 year lifespan of playing cutting edge/new releases from a PC built for only $400.
EvaUnit02 on 27/5/2009 at 07:02
Quote Posted by Aja
Sure, Oblivion has seaweed now but everytime I see it I think about how I'm not playing the game as it was intended. Or else I spend hours tweaking and balancing the game to get it JUST how I want it and by that point it's no longer interesting.
Obviously most PC gamers don't feel this way, but for us lowbrows the mods just aren't worth the hassle. Thief 2 might be the only exception.
Bethesda's official Broken Steel DLC expansion went along way in improving the overall game, but that's improved still by mods that slow character growth (not that I'm using any). In Fallout 3 you can become a unstoppable tank rather quickly, the skill books and Vault Boys don't help thinks much either.
I usually only use cosmetic mods and unofficial patches. Eg the weapon skins in vanilla STALKER are trash and mostly all of the textures in Fallout 3 are so low res that they scorch my retinas.
Scope aiming for the Sniper Rifle and .44 Magnum is utterly fucked in vanilla Fallout 3. You have to aim slightly down and to the right of reticle's centre to hit anything properly, or something retarded along those lines. I fixed that shit with a mod ages ago.
For example:-
(
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/modules/members/index.php?id=309068) NMC's retextures of Megaton, Rivet City and the general terrain
(
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/modules/members/index.php?id=1026866) weijiesen's power armours
(
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4137) ObsidianStag's clutter retextures
But there are exceptions like Fallout 3's poorly thought out repair system, ~60 hours was all that I could stand of that bullshit before I ran towards mods.
