Permanent consequences for failure that aren't death

[Endorya]

Exactly my point.

Actually, yes, I do refuse to play such games. I have plenty of opportunity to play them, I just don't. If I want to have "fun," "exploring" or whatever it is you think would be better/easier in a pseudo-roguelike with save file reloading (wow), I do things in real life. Fun is easy to find.

Thrill and to a much lesser extent challenge are not as easy to find, which is why I value them more highly in video games. It's why I like playing PvP in first person shooters, but not the stupid-ass story modes they sometimes come with. It's why I got tired of the Final Fantasy series in my teens but kept playing roguelikes now and then.

I understand that some people find roguelikes too hard or frustrating to be "fun." I think that's too bad and that it's probably possible to nibble around the edges (e.g. what I suggested upthread: allowing players to replay deadly encounters just for practice/to see what they did wrong, but leaving them dead when they're satisfied with the replays) to make things more "discoverable" and less "punishing." But if anything, suggestions of unrestricted save file reloading are getting more of a hearing here than they warrant, not less.

There simply isn't a plausible excuse a human being could through at me that could justify that having a game with a controlled and optional save-game feature would be a bad thing. The only side effect that could happen would be having some people loosing interest on the game after finishing it. But then again, roguelike purists really don't care how big their fans database is right? Not to mention that only the "common lot" would in fact use the controlled saving game feature, so the audience would basically remain the same anyways (only the game would be more famous this way).

Rattling about how having this optional feature would be a bad thing just reminds me of a dog barking at a cat which is two floors above it. The barking is simply instinctive and really doesn't do anything except annoying the neighbors and cats themselves.

@Everyone
It really doesn't fortify your justifications either by describing what you prefer or not or how do you view or experience the fun factor when it is something totally subjective to each one of us. Your justifications would make sense if the optional saving feature was intended to replace permadeath.

And for the record, I'm a dog person.

[LazyCat]

Actually, yes, I do refuse to play such games. I have plenty of opportunity to play them, I just don't. If I want to have "fun," "exploring" or whatever it is you think would be better/easier in a pseudo-roguelike with save file reloading (wow), I do things in real life. Fun is easy to find.

No one wants to exclude permadeath. Why would you avoid those games if you could play them the way you want to?

[Endorya]

Actually, yes, I do refuse to play such games. I have plenty of opportunity to play them, I just don't. If I want to have "fun," "exploring" or whatever it is you think would be better/easier in a pseudo-roguelike with save file reloading (wow), I do things in real life. Fun is easy to find.

No one wants to exclude permadeath. Why would you avoid those games if you could play them the way you want to?

It is funny because my wife asked the same question when I exercised this issue with her.

[reaver]

I believe there is another thread about "permadeath or not", could you please go back to design suggestions as the thread title says? This whole thing doesn't do the forum any good...

[Endorya]

I believe there is another thread about "permadeath or not", could you please go back to design suggestions as the thread title says? This whole thing doesn't do the forums any good...

You are right. This is kinda off topic but some comments are simply too "addicting" to deny.

[LazyCat]

I believe there is another thread about "permadeath or not", could you please go back to design suggestions as the thread title says? This whole thing doesn't do the forum any good...

What we are talking about is design suggestion, which is to simply have an option. Whatever you come up with that is not pure permadeath you will still have these same people making the same objections. If you want to make them happy it will need to be optional whatever the case. The only problem is they don't seem to be happy with having an option, for some strange and unknown reason.

[rust]

The only problem is they don't seem to be happy with having an option, for some strange and unknown reason.

That's because we don't need an option. Haven't you realized it already?

[Endorya]

The only problem is they don't seem to be happy with having an option, for some strange and unknown reason.

That's because we don't need an option. Haven't you realized it already?

Let me see if I got this straight. You are against having roguelikes containing optional restore points because you don't need them? So, can I say you are against anything you don't use?! Or this only applies to roguelikes? (which I still find it to be quite disturbing) Did you just disabled your common sense on purpose or did I fail to understand your reasoning?

One more question. Will you play a roguelike with permadeath which also has optional checkpoints? If not, could you explain to me the reason behind it? Like, in which way having optional checkpoints affects you as a permadeath player?

Majority is stupid. If you want a game that aims at the biggest possible audience, then go play Candy Crush or Farmville.

Its incredible how you flag people who prefer relaxing games as being stupid and then the best response you have to games presenting multiple solutions regarding game play modes is: "That's because we don't need an option. Haven't you realized it already?". Is this some kind of roguelike syndrome after playing them for too long? Are you frakking kidding me?

[rust]

More like against the thing LazyCat is talking about, which is free saving and loading, though checkpoints don't quite fit my taste either. That said, I'd still play a roguelike with checkpoints if it's any good.
Also, as long as you don't enforce the choice, (eg. you pick a mode at the start of a game and can't change it later) then the word "optional" makes no sense, as you can delete your save after death in any game, effectively making it permadeath.

[Endorya]

More like against the thing LazyCat is talking about, which is free saving and loading, though checkpoints don't quite fit my taste either. That said, I'd still play a roguelike with checkpoints if it's any good.
Also, as long as you don't enforce the choice, (eg. you pick a mode at the start of a game and can't change it later) then the word "optional" makes no sense, as you can delete your save after death in any game, effectively making it permadeath.

Having the ability of choosing checkpoints, free-saving or whatever escapes permadeath at the beginning of the game IS STILL an option you have! But even if you can do it during mid play I still don't see a problem with it as you are NOT FORCED to use it. Yes you can delete a save-game of any game! Fraks you can play ANY game in the world as permadeath if you want to. What are you trying to say here?

Honestly man, what are we exactly discussing here? Me and lazyCat are presenting additional options not removing existing ones! Sure you are not forced to implement them if you don't want to, but come on! Being against optional choices simply because you don't want to use them completely baffles me.

[awake]

It's stupid that you can "die" in an RPG in the first place. You could spare players the tedium of having to reload from a save if the game just allowed the character's HP to decrease to negative numbers with no averse gameplay consequences. Of course if you're a "Hardcore Gamer"(tm) you can just go to the menu and choose quit when your HP drops below 1, but it's unjustifiable to force that on the player.

[rust]

Having the ability of choosing checkpoints or not at the beginning of the game IS STILL an option you have! But even if you can do it during mid play I still don't see a problem with it as you are NOT FORCED to use it. Yes you can delete a save-game of any game! Fraks you can play ANY game in the world as permadeath if you want to. What are you trying to say here?

I'm trying to say that it's pointless to say that a game has "optional" checkpoints or saving, because the same can be said about any game. Exagerrating a bit, it's like saying that a game has optional graphics, because you can always turn off the screen or play with your eyes closed if you want.

Its incredible how you flag people who prefer relaxing games as being stupid and then the best response you have to games presenting multiple solutions regarding game play modes is: "That's because we don't need an option. Haven't you realized it already?". Is this some kind of roguelike syndrome after playing them for too long? Are you frakking kidding me?

Kinda didn't get my point here, I enjoy relaxing games as well. I was referring to LazyCat's argument that saving is good for roguelikes just because most people don't like permadeath. Drawing another analogy, that would be like voting for a president just because polls show that he will win, not because of what he's promising to do.

[Endorya]

I'm trying to say that it's pointless to say that a game has "optional" checkpoints or saving, because the same can be said about any game. Exagerrating a bit, it's like saying that a game has optional graphics, because you can always turn off the screen or play with your eyes closed if you want.

Its pointless to go philosophical when the issue itself is made of solid evidence. Having multiple choices for game play is always better than having just one. Call this having choices, call it an illusion or call it pancakes, I leave that to your own discretion.

[Endorya]

It's stupid that you can "die" in an RPG in the first place. You could spare players the tedium of having to reload from a save if the game just allowed the character's HP to decrease to negative numbers with no averse gameplay consequences. Of course if you're a "Hardcore Gamer"(tm) you can just go to the menu and choose quit when your HP drops below 1, but it's unjustifiable to force that on the player.

Sure, having no averse game play consequences seems the ideal way to go. Just make the player invulnerable to damage and let it go from start to end in a smooth ride to hell just in name of relaxation. Heck! Let the character's movement be controlled by the computer itself so you can skip the tedious key pressing. The whole thing would be even better if near a pool during a hot summer day while smoking a Cuban and drinking a margarita.

Anyway, welcome to the roguelike forum

[mushroom patch]

I'm trying to say that it's pointless to say that a game has "optional" checkpoints or saving, because the same can be said about any game. Exagerrating a bit, it's like saying that a game has optional graphics, because you can always turn off the screen or play with your eyes closed if you want.

Its pointless to go philosophical when the issue itself is made of solid evidence. Having multiple choices for game play is always better than having just one. Call this having choices, call it an illusion or call it pancakes, I leave that to your own discretion.

Not if the choice most players will make sucks. Think about it: They make the choice you think they want (and I absolutely agree that most will make that choice). They play through the game and they're like: "Hey, this was just a standard RPG with mediocre map design and very little structure in terms of monster placement etc. I could still do the same saving and reloading crap I always do, but it seemed like everything was pretty much the same. A lot of time, all I had to do was keep reloading and doing the same thing and I could get past the hard parts. There was no story, no plot, nothing. This game sucks and I'm telling all my friends."