Have multiple quicksaves #78
Comments
|
The player should be creating "hard" saves at regular intervals. If they mess up a quick save, then they could fall back onto a "hard" save. |
|
Should be doesn't mean that they are. I think many users would really appreciate this feature. I know I would. |
|
I'd agree with Camron on this. I usually don't support mechanisms designed to protect the stupid. If you are dense enough not to properly save and mess up your quicksave, you deserve to start the level over. |
|
Because screwing players over is nice? No. In no way does this hurt anybody, it just helps. I do not approve of your Elitist stance. Try to love and tolerate some more. |
|
Well played, sir. Regardless, I'm the "remove the warning labels and let natural selection do the rest" sort of person. If I spend hours playing Civilization and then decide to quit without saving, Sid Meier didn't make me lose all of my progress. I did because I was too dense. People should accept responsibility for their idiotic mistakes. I've lost progress before. It taught me to save regularly. When you are doing paid work, you need to be in the habit of saving regularly. Video games taught me that. It isn't so much elitist as "grow up and take care of yourself" sort of stance. That is not directed at you personally, of course, but at ignorant users who blame their actions (or lack thereof) on the developers. True, it wouldn't hurt anyone. The concept of it just seems rather silly to me. More importantly, how many quicksaves would be allowed? Why not just do a regular save? A regular save is only one keystroke and 3 clicks away. I don't think I've ever really bothered to quicksave. The autosave at the start of each map and the checkpoints have always sufficed. All of that said, I am not really a code contributor and will probably never be able to provide anything more useful than some (extensive) testing and bug hunting. I voice my opinions, but really don't have any right to be bothered by what actual contributors such as yourself choose to do. I'm seeing an update of my favorite FPS. Who am I to complain? |
|
Let's not forget the most obvious reason why this is a bit of a bad idea: needs new assets. I agree with Cameron and all the others. The game is already stupidly easy as it is, and it has not one, not two, but THREE different methods of saving. Why add more? If you've put yourself in a bad situation, that's your own fault really. Sent from my Windows Phone From: cadika-orademailto:notifications@github.com Well played, sir. Regardless, I'm the "remove the warning labels and let natural selection do the rest" sort of person. If I spend hours playing Civilization and then decide to quit without saving, Sid Meier didn't make me lose all of my progress. I did because I was too dense. People should accept responsibility for their idiotic mistakes. I've lost progress before. It taught me to save regularly. When you are doing paid work, you need to be in the habit of saving regularly. Video games taught me that. It isn't so much elitist as "grow up and take care of yourself" sort of stance. That is not directed at you personally, of course, but at ignorant users who blame their actions (or lack thereof) on the developers. True, it wouldn't hurt anyone. The concept of it just seems rather silly to me. More importantly, how many quicksaves would be allowed? Why not just do a regular save? A regular save is only one keystroke and 3 clicks away. I don't think I've ever really bothered to quicksave. The autosave at the start of each map and the checkpoints have always sufficed. All of that said, I am not really a code contributor and will probably never be able to provide anything more useful than some (extensive) testing and bug hunting. I voice my opinions, but really don't have any right to be bothered by what actual contributors such as yourself choose to do. I'm seeing an update of my favorite FPS. Who am I to complain? Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: |
|
Just how would this need new assets? And why are you all so anti-player? |
|
I don't know. Maybe we're masochists who like playing Minecraft on "hardcore" mode and like games with perma-death. I'm not anti-player. I'm anti-moron. As @eezstreet points out, what good would be a fourth method of saving your game? Though, I am curious. What new assets would be needed? |
|
The good would be a reduction in player frustration. What bad would it do? |
|
We could also decrease player frustration by making godmode active by default. There really isn't much purpose in making a game easier. Personally, I like a tiny bit of challenge. Not that JA really offers much challenge, but I spend most of my playtime orchestrating huge battles or building elaborate scenarios. You could make the game auto-save every time you took a step. At that point, you could effectively rewind every conflict until you make it through without ever being hit. To be honest, I'd be more interested in adding perma-death. There's something special about having your save deleted after your character dies. It fosters a greater emotional connection with the game. |
|
Creating backup-quicksaves and adding perma-death are not mutually exclusive, you know? Feel free to open a new issue about perma-death. |
|
You make a valid point, sir. I just might. It feels more like something that should be in a mod than in the central code, though. I have lots of ideas of things to add, but I read somewhere around here that OpenJK is not trying to significantly change core gameplay. |
|
Personally, I'm fine with adding optional new functionality, as long as the option to play the game as it originally was is kept. Discussing that kind of thing is exactly what that issue could be used for though. |
I'm more anti-idiocy than anything. And by new assets, I mean new menu stuff that needs added. There's already a "multiple quick save" feature -> its called regular saving. Which you can do with pressing a bind, and hitting "save game". This feature would be absolutely pointless Sent from my Windows Phone From: Willi Schinmeyermailto:notifications@github.com Personally, I'm fine with adding optional new functionality, as long as the option to play the game as it originally was is kept. Discussing that kind of thing is exactly what that issue could be used for though. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: |
In singleplayer, alternate between multiple quicksave slots in case something goes wrong while saving or the player quicksaves in an unwinnable situation (e.g. accidentally saving instead of loading while falling to their death).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: