• codystovall - November 11, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    Its just a game, if you wanna fight the dragon and not restart after you die its your choice. Dont get all analytical or philosophic and think your undermining immersion. Lets just have fun!! Also like legendaries in pokemon or the last battle on a hill. Always save before.
  • TaylorCocke - November 11, 2011 5:16 p.m.

    Ah, but I am a critic! I get paid to "get all analytical or philosophic." It's something that I truly love to think about. I'm quite passionate about these things that are "just a game".
  • cubine - November 11, 2011 6:50 p.m.

    Yeah, it is your choice because the developers give you that choice. He's saying that games would potentially be more interesting if developers forced you to live with your decisions/mistakes, and I'm sure he feels that other things within games would need to be tweaked to accommodate this (for instance, giving you greater opportunity to prepare before a Legendary fight in Pokemon, etc). Also I don't think he's necessarily advocating "permadeath" the way you're spinning it.
  • D0CCON - November 11, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    I don't agree with not saving before a dragon fight since dying will just reload a checkpoint anyways. However, even without reading this article, I decided to stick to most of my choices thus far. There was one quest where I was wondering how each of my possible options would play out before deciding to not save and just take what happened. While that is nice, I always want the option of saving a lot there. I believe features should be added, not taken away. I think that saying you should be forced to not save because it's the "right" way to play is like saying you should be forced to play with the gore on in Gears of War because that's what's "right." Some people may have low gore tolerances (even videogame gore), so why limit them? Same principle applies here I think.
  • VigotheCarpathian - November 11, 2011 4:39 p.m.

    I don't suppose you've played Football Manager, but saving before an important game and then replaying it if you lose is one of the lowest depths a gamer can sink to.
  • Xerxes667 - November 11, 2011 6:16 p.m.

    Not really a reply to your comment. Just wanted to give you props on your awesomely geeky screen name! HE IS VIGO!
  • NullG7 - November 11, 2011 4:37 p.m.

    I sort of agree. I save often however not to reload them, I just want something to fall back on if save data inevitably becomes corrupted. That way I wont have to redo 28 hours of game play cursing my own stupidity at trusting one save file to work every time.
  • maxw144 - November 11, 2011 4:27 p.m.

    I think physically limiting the game is a bad idea, but something like what the Witcher 2 did was making it unclear what the far reaching consequences of your decisions would be. You would have to play for multiple hours before you would find out, meaning you'd have little inclination to go back if things didn't turn out quite how you hoped.
  • garnsr - November 11, 2011 4:16 p.m.

    What happens when you die, though? Is it reasonable to only have saves when you walk through a doorway? If you spend three hours walking around the world, then get killed by a dragon, and get pushed back to the last time it autosaved just because you walked through a doorway, does that help you stay immersed better than making your own save now and then? You have to restart after you die, which means there needs to be some sort of save. Who decides at what point that save should kick in? And Taylor Cocke sounds like the perfect name for someone writing a column called High Horse.
  • fraser-brumley - November 11, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    I don't think removing save files is the best way to go about this, I think we should find a way to make the game progress after losing instead of just chucking up a GAME OVER or respawning you twenty feet back. I think most games should run on a kind of consequence system, if you get attacked by a massive dragon at the start of Skyrim it wouldn't just say you suck try again instead it would show you being dragged to the closest town by people passing by and then you would wake up there and have to proceed from there or something like that. Obviously it wouldn't always do that but the game would design different ways of punishing you but giving you another chance at the same time.
  • Supermanoh - November 11, 2011 3:49 p.m.

    Like the beginning of Red Dead Redemption?
  • TaylorCocke - November 11, 2011 3:58 p.m.

    But then what's to stop you from just reloading to before you got knocked out? I like where you're going with this...
  • Supermanoh - November 11, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    Dark Souls appeals to me exactly because of this. Without that chance, I play cautiously, I play meaningfully. I started playing Skyrim today and panicked when I died. Not that I had to, I lost no souls.
  • kingsmikefan - November 11, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    I like GR doing these kinds of articles; lets us get to know them better.
  • ButtersPTOM - November 11, 2011 3:38 p.m.

    In my mind, what separates movies from games is not only the possibility to experience more, less, or different content as a result of our choices but also the way we become invested in the main characters. In Star Wars, I relate to Luke Skywalker. In Skyrim, I AM the protagonist. And, like any person, I want to be the hero. I'm not worried about giving my character "depth;" I think of him simply as an avatar for myself. In the event of a failure, I don't feel as though my avatar has failed, I feel as though /I/ have failed. So when I mess up a conversation or get killed by a dragon, I don't feel like I'm building a stronger narrative for myself and I don't even CARE if I am--I just feel like I messed up and I want another shot at it. Then when I get it right, I feel satisfied knowing I was able to earn my desired outcome, and my perfectionist sensibilities are assuaged. But that's just my take.
  • TaylorCocke - November 11, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    I think this is indicative of a lot of players' mentalities. What I'm suggesting is a large scale shift in the way we think about our avatars. Rather than a vessel for experiencing the entirety of a world, they could be a vessel for creating a powerful, imperfect narrative. Of course, this would require not only an overhaul of the way we save our games, but also some big changes in game design as a whole to allow for some of these completionist tendencies to be played out.
  • mockraven - November 11, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    I'm the same as you in this regard. Also, some achievements rely on you sweet talking a critical person, defeating a boss a specific way, partaking in a specific event that you might have otherwise missed. Ideally you'd get that on your first try, but why punish yourself by saying "Oh, well I screwed up this time. Maybe in my second or third new game I'd get it." While the "no turning back" approach might be more entertaining for some, I'd like to keep the options to redo my screw ups, especially when I hit the wrong dialogue by mistake to begin with.
  • TaylorCocke - November 11, 2011 3:53 p.m.

    Well, I can't stand Achievements for a lot of reasons. Perhaps some I'll get into in a later article.
  • Zepaw - November 11, 2011 3:37 p.m.

    "The best solution I can come up with to fix this little problem is for developers to stop allowing multiple save files and quick saves." They should force me to play the way they want? That will push people like me away who enjoy playing in the style you are speaking against. If I really care about experiencing it mistakes and all like I did with ME2 then I can choose to play my first through like that and come back around on another play through and see all those little things I missed. I actively stay away from games with a rigid save set-ups. P.S. good rotating column concept.
  • TaylorCocke - November 11, 2011 3:43 p.m.

    I had a thought about this at one point. What if games got rid of the ability to quick save and reload for just your first playthrough, then unlocked it for later ones. How would you guys feel about that?
  • manept - November 11, 2011 6:23 p.m.

    I wouldn't mind that, has long has there was an indication somewhere that on the 2nd time i could quicksave/quickload all freely, otherwise i could miss it if it became to "painful". It's like Zepaw said, part of playing an RPG game is the coming back again and doing it some other way. Picking up ME2 for example again, first i played it full paragon, 2nd time renegade, 3rd time just for the love interest so i can later upload all the variations i want into the 3. When i played Crysis 2, on the other hand, that game gave me no interest in repeating, why? walk 15 minutes, kill almost everyone, dye, have to walk 15 minutes again and so on. I finished it merely because, otherwise i would have walked out on it.

Showing 41-60 of 65 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.