Predictions for the most disappointing games of 09/10

I use shitloads of saves when I'm practicing maps that I'm going to record on while looking for optimal routes. For example the only time that I've played 32 Inch Nails map05 without saves was when I recorded the demo.

Can't imagine how much time I would've wasted on it if I were to restart from scratch everytime I died or decided the route choice I've made was slower than I expected.

So I wouldn't necessarily tie myk's opinion on saves with demoing.

Belial said:
So I wouldn't necessarily tie myk's opinion on saves with demoing.

Although the act of recording the demo does agree with the concept, once the practice concluded. My main idea is that you're playing when you don't use saves (for reasons stated in posts above), otherwise you can say you're just checking the level or practicing. Some, though, only play using saves and do nothing more than that, mainly because it makes it easier to progress though levels. You probably don't need saves for easier levels, on the other hand... or perhaps you do find them useful there sometimes, as well, for optimization practice; like you save at one point and then practice a certain area from the save to learn the best way to kill all the monsters quickly, playing with infighting and optimizing weapon or powerup use.

The Ultimate DooMer said:
Sorry, but the very notion that playing with saves is "not skill" or "only for people who want exploration rather than challenge" is just elite demorunner talk.

Heh, I wish I were an elite speed runner, but I lack some of the natural dexterity. In any case, I didn't say there wasn't skill in it. You might well be better than me at some things. It is missing some aspects or potentials of it, though. My expression on the link between saving and exploration is to show why people end up using them habitually. It can't be denied that they quicken progress through levels, allowing us to reach areas, up to the exit switch. That it may end up sounding like some sort of insult just gets in the way of that point, but isn't the intent.

Especially with -fast.

Why stick exclusively to -fast? It tends to be the deadliest "completion" mode, but is not as hard if you rely on saves to do it.

The only difference between playing a very hard map 1000 times without saves and playing once with saves is the amount of time spent playing the same map.

I can't say that's the only difference. In one case, you complete the map by having the ability to tackle all the challenges, one after another. In the other, it's a sum of a number of successful parts stringed together conveniently: A compilation of bests. Being able to play a level with saves doesn't guarantee being able to complete it in one go, because you're not coordinating the whole thing, at best using multiple saves to fall back to in case one save goes bad (leaves you in a more or less impossible situation).

would you rather play the entire map again from scratch to return to the point before you died, or save all of that time by loading your savegame instead?

Is playing the previous part not fun? That point from which you are continuing from is arbitrarily defined, with a certain amount of ammo health and monsters which depend on how practiced you were on the previous section, or how lucky you were.

but that's just not practical for most maps today

It's practical in tons of maps today. The expansive ones with 65K+ linedefs do get impractical, at least for single player, and the ones made for Belial-level players at UV get insane if you try them with -fast on that difficulty.

And about measurable challenge...do I sense the anti-save argument is because there's no compet-n standards or other means of measuring performance against other players for playing maps with saves?

It applies to oneself too. My appreciation for playing without saves came from applying it as a challenge. It forced me to learn to coordinate progression while playing so as to be able to complete the level without dying. There's also a kind of satisfaction in playing the game in a pure clean way. I give similar arguments when comparing standard demo recording with TAS demo recording. Like with save-gaming, you can use the help of saves to record there, as well as a "slow motion" feature. Have you given thought to making demos? (In whatever engine or levels you prefer.) You seem to have insight into playing and I bet you'd do well at that. It should even allow playing with deaths, if you set things up to work like in multiplayer (this makes particular sense in coop-oriented levels, but also maybe some larger ones.)

Creaphis said:
Should one way of playing a game really be labeled as inferior, a source of "bad" habits?

People might feel they're being branded inferior especially because of what I said above; they've been hooked to resorting to saves since the start on all or most of their play-through attempts, by habit, so it gets "personal". As for playing habits, the best are developed in a social manner, observantly, and multiplayer and demo recording are two clear ways provide inter-player feedback to that end. In Doommappingworld, critiques on level design are encouraged but critiques on playing are taboo!

we don't all aspire to be professional gaming athletes.

It's not about getting paid, just playing a game. You don't have to be too ambitious if you stick to levels with an appropriate construction set to a suitable difficulty. It's when we try to tackle levels that are beyond our skill that we resort to crutches like save games or cheat codes... or we can also use suprwpn8.deh :p

Alright, that's fair. I agree that it is more skillful to complete a game with fewer saves, and if one wishes to become a "better" player in terms of raw skill, the challenge of playing without saves would be beneficial. I was previously under the impression that you were arguing that the best way to appreciate a game is by playing it without saves. When whether something is art or not cannot even be objectively determined I felt it inappropriate for you to claim that there is a "right" way to peruse it - and particularly so when said way is not always my preferred method.

Say what you please about my playing ability; I do not fear inferiority. But no one belittles my aesthetic eye and gets away with it.

myk said:

Is playing the previous part not fun? That point from which you are continuing from is arbitrarily defined, with a certain amount of ammo health and monsters which depend on how practiced you were on the previous section, or how lucky you were.

Actually, even when I'm in the mood to play a game "for real" I will resent playing a part of the game if I've already come to, seen and conquered that portion three times, or so. While it improves the flow to play more of the game in a single stretch, I find it more significantly flow-breaking to have to play a single area multiple times.

Creaphis said:
I agree that it is more skillful to complete a game with fewer saves, and if one wishes to become a "better" player in terms of raw skill, the challenge of playing without saves would be beneficial.

That sounds like an outsider's vision of what I'm referring to, like a sere "you bother to go to gym to have bigger muscles". The primary motivator is an enjoyment of the game. Perceived gains, in skill, are satisfying, but these come as a result of the playing.

I was previously under the impression that you were arguing that the best way to appreciate a game is by playing it without saves.

You were correct! I did note how saves could have a role, but also how playing is the main platter and satisfaction.

When whether something is art or not cannot even be objectively determined I felt it inappropriate for you to claim that there is a "right" way to peruse it - and particularly so when said way is not always my preferred method.

The word art doesn't just mean an "aesthetically oriented activity". Many "the art of" phrases refer to something more practical (the art of war, the art of programming, the art of lying) and personally I tend to stay away from the word "art" when describing, though not necessarily when naming, a true art (such as literature or painting) because the word is trite and tied more to works than practice. Crafts may be called art in their way, but they serve specific functions, as opposed to being something that works on itself. I like this quote:

That's not what we're doing. We're doing entertainment. Saying it's art is a kind of sophistry from people who want to aggrandize our industry.

Especially when it comes to a game like DOOM. Other games may be another matter. I don't pass judgment on them.

Say what you please about my playing ability; I do not fear inferiority. But no one belittles my aesthetic eye and gets away with it.

I find that the beauty in DOOM, or any raw FPS, is in the performance, and if save-gaming is like producing a movie, playing is performing a play. Save-gaming is more like composing a MIDI while playing is like playing an instrument.

Actually, even when I'm in the mood to play a game "for real" I will resent playing a part of the game if I've already come to, seen and conquered that portion three times, or so. While it improves the flow to play more of the game in a single stretch, I find it more significantly flow-breaking to have to play a single area multiple times.

We're all adapted to our habits, but other than a rather esoteric "I am this way" or "I enjoy this", what can you say of these experiences in relation to practice and any evolution of it in your playing or other related activities? When you speak of an emphasis on aesthetic appreciation combined with saves, I think of the descriptions I made above of save-gaming, which give the practice some ties with what we do. You attacked objectivity, yet without concrete illustrations tied to some sort of object that we can relate through, one can hardly discuss such a topic, only making disconnected assertions.