myk
webbed digits
Posts: 14316
Registered: 04-02 |
hardcore_gamer said:
Hearing someone accuse me of not playing games for the gameplay leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, using quick save does not make me a progression whore who doesn't care about the gameplay.
Not a total whore, just a bit of a slut :p
I understand some people do "play for the challenge" and still use saves. It often comes naturally from the game design combined with the readily available save game feature. It's there, they use it, and don't think back on not using it for any reason. What I'm saying is that save gaming benefits or befits progression more than playing for the challenge.
As far as I'm concerned, saving outside of an interruption takes a piece out of the "for the challenge" aspect. Playing an action game is like playing a guitar. Do you skip parts of a good song because you've "already played it"? On the contrary, you play it again, and play it better. Now, if the game actually sucks in various sections, maybe it's time to "warp" to the good sections or to play something else.
Oh! And some people's claims here that you don't need any skills to play the game if you use quick save is rubbish, regardless of if or not one decides to use quick save the player will still have to be at least relatively good at the game if he is suppose to beat it.
No one said "any skill". They've said less, and that you miss out on an aspect of game play continuity.
In other words, surviving a series of hard trials in uninterrupted sequence is harder than tackling those challenges while having the possibility to go over the harder parts over and over. With saves, it requires some skill, sure, but it does not lend to improving skills as much and isn't as hard to progress with.
And I'm not even telling you to stop using saves, hardcore_gamer. That's up to you. What do I care? Just keep in mind that that "repetition" and insistence on not relying on saves (except perhaps for some modes of practice or to go out to dinner) brings on a bunch of skill acquisition and action that is otherwise avoided. It's not about being of a better or superior race of warriors or the like. It's about some facts related to certain practices regarding action games.
kristus said:
Gez: You seem to be missing the point where it's not even a debate about the saves.
It may have been brought up by someone who may be called a moron, but it did start somewhere :p
Keep in mind the two topics are somewhat related, though, in the sense that people who think playing with saves is the same as playing without them won't mind having quick saves or a similar feature stuffed in their face automatically each time they die or the like.
Gez said:
It really, really depends on the game in my opinion, and on what it offers. A series of discrete maps that can be played in under 20 minutes each is not the same thing at all as a large seamless world in which you can play for hundreds and hundreds of hours.
Although how the save or life related features will be implemented kind of defines what the game will be good for, or how it will be played. Thus at this point people look at the potential features and wonder whether it'll be interesting to them. The whole concept might not lend itself that well to action, for example, and might use it only to further a plot or provide some sort of interaction, giving other aspects more importance. It does, by the descriptions they've given, sound like a rather eclectic, or heh, even ambiguous, game.
|
07-28-09 21:23 
